As 
Ha 55 



i 

I 

i 




r > 



COMPANION 



TO THE 



Revised Version of the New Testament, 



EXPLAINING 



THE REASdNS FOR THE CHANGES MADE ON THE 

AUTHORIZED VERSION. 



BY 

ALEX. ROBERTS, D.D., 

PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREW'S, AND MEMBER OF THE EKCUSU 

NEW TESTAMENT COMi-AWY. 



WITH SUPPLEMENT, 

BY 

A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 



AUTHORIZED EDITION. 



k 



NEW YORK: 

I. K. FUNK & CO., Pu^iSHERS, 

lo AND 12 Dey Street. 



/ 



i"^ 



«A» 



TiO THE BOOK TRADE AND PUBLIC. 

MIDSUMMER LIBRARY 



LIBRA IR IE DE LUXE. 



We take pleasure in announcing that we have begun a New Serial Publica- 
tion to be called the Midsttmmer Library. It is a Librairie de Ltixe, possessing 
the convenient size, large type, good presswork, and paper of the better quality 
of bound books and, at the same time, embodying the advantages of the well- 
known serial libraries. 

ITS FEATURES: 

1. It will contain none but choice, readable book*;, from the most famous authors — books of popular 

interest, to be read during hours of leisure at the summer resort, on tliccars, at home, every whtie. 

2. The type is large — Long^ Primer. 

3. It is printed on good book paper. 

4. In size it is the ordinary i2mo book. It can be easily carried in the pocket 

5. It is sewed (not stitched or wired) the .same as the reeular bound book. 

6. The presswork is that known as book presswork. and the m irgins are ample. 

7. The cover is leatherette, very beautiful and endurable. Each number is *' a thine of beau'y,'* an 

ornament to any parlor table or library. It stands upright on the library shelf. The title of each 
book is printed on the side and back. 

8. Each number will contain some 300 pages. 

Price per Number, 35 cents. For sale by Booksellers and Newsdealers 
everywhere, or will be sent on receipt of price by the publishers. 

No. I of the Librar)4 now readv, contains : Lytton-Rulwer's two Celebrated 
Novels: I. The Coming Race; or, The New Utopia, 2. Leila; or, 
The Siege of Grenada. 



Young's Analytical Concordance to tlic Bible. 

The Fourth Revised and only Authorized and Correct Edition. 

A CAUTION. 

"We ivill give $too to Mr. Young; or any other person who discovers even iiveniy important 
discrepancies between his (Dr. Young's) Revised Edition and our own.^' — Book Exchange. 

As the representatives of Dr. Young in America, we agree to point out to 
three competent judges, say Drs. John Hall, Schaff, and Crosby, twenty important 
discrepancies, if these reprinters will pay. $100 to such charity as maybe desig- 
nated by the committee ; we will point out twice ttventy, if they will pay $200 ; 
we will point out three times twenty, if they will pay $300 ; and so on, to the full 
number of such discrepancies which we may point out. 

If these men who have printed this Concordance against the earnest protest 
of the author believe that the author has wronged thena in warning the public 
against their reprint as inaccurate and a gross injury to himself, they will, 
certainly, eagerly embrace this opportunity to set themselves right. 

^^°' Nearly 2000 additions and other corrections are found in the, Revised Edition 
which are not in the unauthorized reprint.^ 

Remember ih^i the corrected and perfected book has the words ''Authorized 
Edition" and ^'Revised Edition" on the title-page. Dr. Young urges those who 
feel that he has done them a service in this his life-work to help acquaint the 
public with this fact. 

See prices and fuller description on advertising pages at the close of this 
volume. 

SOLE AGENTS FOR AMERICA, 

I. K. FUNK & CO., 10 and 12 Dey Street, New York. 



COMPANION • 



TO THE 



Revised Version of the New Testament, 



EXPLAINING 



THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES MADE ON THE 
AUTHORIZED VERSION. 



BV 

ALEX. ROBERTS, D.D., * 

PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREW'S, AND MEMBER OF THE ENGLISH 

NEW TESTAMPNT COMPANY. 



WITH SUPPLEMENT, 

BY 

A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF REVISION. 







AUTHORIZED EDITION. 


> 




NEW YORK: ^ 


I. 


K. 


FUNK 


& CO., Publishers, 






lO Af 


2 Dey Street. 






Copyright, 1881, 
By I. K. FUNK & CO., and O. M. DUNHAM. 



« • 
\ 1 

*• K 



n5 
M 

Or 

> 



\ 



PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 



Dr. Roberts, a member of the English Committee of Revision, 
has prepared a " Companion to the Revised Version of the English 
New Testament." This is an instructive and useful explanation of 
the departures from the Authorized Version, but is silent about the 
American Appendix and the relation of the American Committee to 
the whole work. It is therefore desirable to supply this defect by- 
such additional information as can be published v/ithout a breach of 
confidence in the interest of both Committees, which have so far har- 
moniously and successfully completed their joint task. 

The writer has been urged to prepare this pamphlet by a number 
of friends and fellow-revisers, but is alone responsible for the cpin- . 
ions expressed, and disclaims any official authority. The New Tes- 
tament Company has adjourned si;te die, and is not likely to convene 
again unless a special emergency should call them together. An cffi- 
cial history of the whole movement cannot be issued yntil the re- 
vision of the Old Testament is completed. 

New York, May, iS8i. 



PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 



The object of this little work is to explain to the English reader 
the general grounds of those many departures from the Authorized 
Version which he will find in the Revised translation. Not one of 
these alterations has been made without what appe^ed to a majority 
of the Revisers an adequate reason. They are all to be traced to one 
or other of two causes— either to a change of the Greek text which it 



IV PREFACE. 

was found necessary to adopt, or to a change of translation which 
stricter fidelity to the original seemed to require. Under these two 
heads, all necessary explanations (so far as space permitted) will be 
found in the following pages. 

For the sake of those who are acquainted with the original, the 
Greek words referred to have been sometimes given at the bottom of 
the page, but the text will be perfectly intelligible without these to the 
English reader. 

It is scarcely needful to add that for what is here written the author 
alone is responsible. 

St. Andrew's. 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 



CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TEXT. 
CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Various Readings in the New Testament 7 

II. Sources of Various Readings in the New Testament 15 

III. History and Character of the Greek Text on which the Authorized 

Version was Founded 24 

IV. Examples of Minor Changes caused by a Change of Text 30 

V. More Important Changes due to a Change of Text 37 

PART II. 

CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TRANSLATION. 

I, Correction of Mistakes in the Meaning of Greek Words 45 

II. Correction of Mistakes in Greek Grammar 52 

III. Correction of Archaisms, Ambiguities, and the rendering of Proper 

Names and Technical Expressions 60 

IV. Correction of the Unnecessary Confounding of one Greek Word with 

another in Translation 67 

V. Correction of Needless Variations in the Translation of the same 

Greek Words 76 

PART III. 

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVISION. 
By an Avtericafi Reviser. 

I. The English Version of 1611 87 

II. The Canterbury Revision of 1870 91 

III. American Co-operation 92 

IV. Constitution of the American Committee 94 

V. Relation of the American and English Committees.. 95 

VI. The American Part in the Joint Work 98 

VII. American Suggestions adopted 101 

VIII. Points of Agreement 104 

. IX. The American Appendix 106 

X. Points of Variation 107 

1. Titles and Headings of Books. 

2. Archaic Forms. 

3. Rendering of Terms denoting Coins. 

4. More Accurate Renderings. 

Conclusion ". . . ^ 113 

Index of Texts , . . . 114 



COMPANION 



TO THE 



REVISED VERSION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 



PART I. 

CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TEXT. 



CHAPTER I. 

VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The number of various readings in the New Testament has been 
differently estimated at different times. Nor could this have been 
otherwise. Every new manuscript which is discovered increases the 
amount, and every more accurate examination of already known 
manuscripts tends to the same result. Hence, while the varieties of 
reading in the New Testament were reckoned at about 30,000 in the 
last century, they are generally referred to as amounting to no less 
than 150,000 at the present day. 

This is a statement which is apt at first to be felt alarming by those 
unacquainted with the science of biblical criticism. They are natu- 
rally disposed to ask, when so many differences of reading exist, 
Must not the sacred text be very uncertain ? But, happily, this is a 
question which can be very easily and satisfactorily answered. 

For, in the first place, the vast majority of the various readings are 
of no practical importance. Multitudes of them are mere errors in 
spelling into which the writer has fallen, either from his ear having 
deceived him if he wrote from dictation, or his eye having mistaken 
one letter for another in the manuscript which lay before him. Others 
consist of the substitution of one synonymous word for another, or of 
a mere change of order without any appreciable distinction of sense. 
As in English the meaning is the same, whether we say, *' He went 
forth," or " He went out," " Let us go on," or/^Let us proceed," 






8 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

" The enemy escaped," or " The enemy made their escape," so is it 
very frequently in the Greek. And, just as it makes no difference in 
our language, whether we say " Paul the Apostle," or " The Apostle 
Paul," " 'ihe poet Milton," or " Milion the poet," so too is it with 
a large number of those variations which occur in the text of the New 
Testament. 

But, in the second place, so far from the immense .variety of read- 
ings which have been collected giv'ing rise to uncertainty, the very 
fact that we possess these constitutes our best hope of being able to 
approach to certainty with respect to the original text. This may 
appear a paradoxical statement, but it admits of easy demonstration. 
For, let us refer to any of those ancient writings, in the printed text 
of which there exist no various readings. Are such texts trustworthy 
and pure ? Nay, the very opposite is the case ; they are all hope- 
lessly corrupt, and the reason is evident. There are no varieties of 
reading, simply because these works have come down to us in a single 
manuscript only. That manuscript is the sole authority to which 
appeal can be made as to their text. And, of course, if every printed 
edition is taken from that, without conjecture venturing to make any 
changes, all the copies will be exactly alike. But nothing could be 
more calamitous to an ancient author than such a circumstance. 
His work having been transcribed so often, in the course of many 
centuries, has, of necessity, become disfigured with numerous errors. 
And, as it survives in only one manuscript, there is no possibility of 
comparison, and no means of correction, except by the arbitrary pro- 
cess of conjecture, which will always vary with different minds. The 
consequence is, that all sorts of guesses are made by editors as to the 
true text of these unfortunate writings. While there are, for the 
reason stated, no various readings, there is the utmost variety of con- 
jectures. Everyone feels that the existing text is in multitudes of 
passages corrupt, and from want of documentary evidence has no 
resource but to proceed to correct it just as his caprice or judgment 
may suggest. 

How different does the case stand in regard to the New. Testament ! 
No miracle has been wrought to preserve its text as it came from the 
pens of the inspired writers. That would have been a thing alto- 
gether out of harmony with God's method of governing the world. 
The manuscripts containing a record of the divine will have been left, 
like others, to suffer from those causes of error which will presently 
be mentioned. But a gracious providence has, nevertheless, been 
exerted in connection with the text of the New Testament. It has 
been so ordered that vastly more copies of the sacred volume have 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 9 

come down to us in manuscript than of any other ancient writing, f 
We learn from the best authorities on the subject that no fewer than / 
1760 manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in parts, are| 
known to scholars in our day.* The most important of these will be 
afterward described. But it is enough at present simply to note the 
existence of such a wealth of material, in order to feel how abundant 
is the means with which it has pleased God to furnish us for ascer- 
taining, through careful examination and comparison, the true text of 
the New Testament. 

We may now proceed to a consideration of the causes which have 
given rise to the vast variety of readings that has been mentioned. 
These causes may perhaps all be embraced under one or other of the 
following heads. 

First, there are those differences of reading which have sprung y>c?;« MH / 
pure mistake. 

As universal experience has proved, nothing is more difficult than 
to get any large amount, of mere copving work done with absolute 
correctness. The transcriber may be careless or incompetent, and 
then, of course, his work will be badly done. No doubt this has 
given rise to not a few of the mistakes which appear in manuscripts 
of the New Testament. Some of the copyists knew very little of what 
they were doing, while others disliked the drudgery ; and so, from 
ignorance or weariness, they fell into error. But even the most skil- 
ful and patient of them migl\t easily go astray in the work of tran- 
scription. One word might be mistaken for another. This is often (^ / ) 
found even in printed books at the present day. It is needless to 
quote examples, as all are familiar with them.f But much more liable 
to this kind of error were transcribers than printers. We find, 
accordingly, numerous examples of various readings due to such mis- 
takes. It is, for instance, owing to this that we read in the Author- 
ized English Version, at i Tim. i : 4, these words, " rather than 
godly edifying which is in faith," instead of " rather than a dispensa- 
tion of God which is in faith," as in the Revised Version. There is 
in Greek only the difference of a single letter between the word 
meaning " edification," and the word meaning " dispensation,"! so 
that copyists readily mistook the one for the other. Sometimes a 

* Scrivener's Introduction, 2d ed., p. 269. 

f A long list of mistakes which have occurred in the printing of some editions 
of the Scriptures is given by Dr. Eadie— " The English Bible," ii. 318. Among 
them are such as these — " enticed in everything," for " enriched in everything ;" 
" leadeth them not,"" for " leadeth them out ;'' " eject," for '^^lect," etc. 

I The two Greek words are olKodo/^lav and oiKovo/xlav, 



10 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

mistake of this kind has taken place without any effect upon the 
sense, as at Mark 5 : 14, where the change made in the Greek text* 
has led to no change in the Revised Version. 

Again, transcribers were frequently betrayed into error by those 
words of like ending which occurred in the manuscripts. An illustra- 
tion in English may be found at Matt. 5 : 8, 9. Both these verses end 
with the word ** God," and it is easy to imagine ihat the eye of a 
copyist might light on that word at the end of verse 9 instead of verse 
8, and thus, after transcribing the one verse, be led to omit the next 
following. This has been a very fruitful cause of omission in even 
the best Greek manuscripts. Thus, in perhaps the very oldest copy 
of the New Testament which we possess — Codex B, to be afterward 
described — we find that the whole of the verse. Matt. 12 : 47, has 
been left out. And the reason is quite obvious. Both verse 46 and 
verse 47 end with the same Greek word.f The copyist looking up at 
his exemplar, after having written verse 46, had his eye attracted by 
the word at the end of verse 47, and, fancying that he had just tran- 
scribed that verse, was led to pass it over altogether. There can be 
no question that this is the reason why the second clause in i John 
2 : 23, is omitted in several manuscripts, so as to stand marked in 
the Authorized Version of doubtful authority. The three last words 
of both the first and second clauses are exactly the same in Greek ; 
and hence the second clause had been overlooked by some tran- 
scribers. There is now no hesitation among biblical scholars as to 
the genuineness of the clause ; and it consequently stands unchal- 
lenged — a weighty doctrinal utterance — in the Revised Version. 

Further, mere glosses, doxologies, or liturgical formularies, written 
on the margin of manuscripts, were sometimes inadvertently intro- 
duced by transcribers into the text. Thus, an unwarranted explana- 
iion has been admitted at John 5 : 3, 4 ; the amission of which in the 
Revised Version, on good grounds of evidence, relieves the passage 
of an obvious difficulty. The doxology of the Lord's prayer, Matt. 
6:13, which seems to have been quite unknown to the early Fathers 
of the Church, probably crept into the text from the margin in like 
manner. And there can hardly be a doubt that the ecclesiastical 
fo7-mula. Acts 8 : 37, found an many manuscripts, but certainly not 
genuine, owed its place to a similar mistake. Nothing could be more 
natural than that additions from the margin — explanatory, doxologi- 
cal, or rubrical — should occasionally find their way into the body of 
some of the manuscripts, while yet the mass of authorities remained 

* (iTTT/yyenv is now read instead of av?j)^y£L?.ai'. 
f Both verses end with /a?.7faai. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. II 

uncorrupted, and still enable us at the present day to discover for 
ourselves the original text. 

Once more, under this head, error would sometimes arise from the VL( 
unconscious working of the mind of the copyist on the passage before 
him. Few transcribers could act the part of mere machines. Their . 
minds accompanied their pens : they thought about what they were 
doing ; and this sometimes proved fatal to the perfect accuracy of 
their work. Supplementary expressions, due to the exercise of their 
own mental powers, slipped in without their perceiving it. Thus at 
Matt. i8 : 28, the true reading is simply, " Pay what thou owest," 
but it was most natural for a copyist to insert a pronoun, so as to 
read as in the text represented by the Authorized Version, " Pay me 
wliat thou owest." Thus, again, the reading of the Revised Version 
at Luke 24 : 53 is, ** were continually in the temple, blessing God," 
bur in not a fev/ manuscripts we fxud, " praising and blessing God." 
There is no reason, in such cases, to imagine that the variation arose 
from design on the part of the transcribers. They were men and not 
machines, and sometimes, all unconsciously, left the impress of their 
own thoughts upon their work. Judging by constant experience, 
nothing is more certain than that unintended supplements would, in 
this way, be made to the text ; and, unless he were constantly on the 
Avatch, there was even all the more risk that a transcriber would thus 
be led to deviate from correctness the farther he rose above a mere 
piece of mechanism, and executed his work with interest and intelli- 
gence. 

Hitherto we have been dealing with errors due to pure accident — 
errors with which the will of the copyist had nothing to do, and from 
which, we may believe, they would have gladly kept free if they 
could. But we have now to notice — 

Secondly, thuse differences of reading which have arisen /";-<?;;/ interi- ; — 
tia7i on the part of the transcribers . 

Unusual expressions were altered. A transcriber meeting with an 
uncommon word or an ungrammatical construction, was strongly 
tempted to change that into a form with which he was familiar. It 
might naturally enough occur to him that, in such a case, his prede- 
cessor in the work of copying had made a mistake, and that he ought 
to remove the blemish thus introduced into the sacred text. This 
tendency to correction has been a very fruitful source of various 
readings. It operated in many ways. For instance, seeming harsh- 
nesses were smoothed. Thus, at Matt. 25 : 3, we read in the Revised 
Version, ** For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil 
with them." But the initial " for" in the Greek, not beinnj liked or 



12 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

understood, was exchanged for the reading represented in the Author- 
ized Version. Again, rare forms of words were rejected in favor of 
the more usual. An example occurs at Rom. 14 : 4, without having 
any effect upon the sense.* Grammatical corrections, too, were 
made, as at Matt. 13 : 16, Rev. 4 : i,t and in many other places. 
Moreover, changes were sometimes introduced, in order to remove 
real or apparent difficulties. Thus, at Mark i : 2 the true reading is 
given in the Revised Version — '* As it is written in Isaiah the proph- 
et." But, inasmuch as the quotation which follows is not wholly 
from Isaiah, but partly also from Malachi, the words of the Evangel- 
ist were corrected into " As it is written in the prophets." And yet 
again, additions to the text seem at times to have been made with the 
mistaken view of promoting edification. Thus, at i Cor. 6 : 20, the 
Revised Version simply reads, " Glorify God, therefore, in your 
body ;" but in some manuscripts we find the addition represented by 
these words in English — "and in your spirit, which are God's." 
However excellent the motive which may have prompted the appending 
of these words, they are wholly out of place, and only serve to blunt 
the point of the Apostle's exhortation. This must be plain to every 
one who considers the context. The same thing appears in several 
other passages, and very markedly at Rom. 8:1, where the insertion 
of the second clause does away with the grand simplicity of the con- 
clusion stated by St. Paul, when he announces as the result of all his 
previous reasonings, " There is, therefore, now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus." 

In view of what has just been said, biblical critics have adopted 
two great principles as guides to a decision v/ith respect to the true 
text of Scripture. The first is, that a difticult or obscure expression, 
nay, even an almost unintelligible term, or a wholly ungrammatical 
construction, is generally to be regarded as the genuine reading, in 
preference to another which is easy, familiar, and correct. The rea- 
son is clear, since a transcriber was far more likely to change what he 
did not like or understand into something which he thought better, 
than to substitute for a common word or a correct construction that 
which was unusual or irregular. The other general principle is, for 
the most part to prefer a shorter to a longer reading. As we have 
seen above, additions were apt in various ways to steal into the text, 
so that, where there are conflicting readings, the br-iefer form has, 
probably, the stronger claim to be accepted. Of course, however, 
these principles cannot be carried out in every case, or in any hard, 

* ^wa-el is now read instead of (hvaruS eariv. 

\ CLKOvEt has been substituted for the true reading aKovovaa\ and /.eyovaa Itycov. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 1 3 

mechanical way, but must always be applied in subordination to a 
cautious and discriminating judgment. 

Next, a widely operative cause of various readings has been the {JL] 
practice of conforming one parallel passage to another. As was to 
be expected, from the amount of common matter which they present, ' 
this is found most frequently in the Gospels. In fact, the tendency 
might be largely illustrated from almost every chapter of the first 
three Evangelists. But the following examples will suffice. The 
true reading at Mark i : 11 is, " Thou art my beloved Son, in f/iee I 
am well pleased ;" but this has been so far conformed to the text of 
Matt. 3 : 17, as to stand, " in whom I am well pleased." Again, the 
true reading at Matt. 17 : 4 is, "If thou wilt, /will make here three 
tabernacles ;" but it has been brought into harmony with Mark 9 : 5, 
and Luke 9 : TyT^^ so as to become, '* Let us make." Once more, the 
true reading at Luke 8 : 34 is, " And when they that fed them saw what 
had come to pass, they fled, and told it," etc. ; but two words have 
been inserted in the Greek, that it might be the same as in* Matt. 
8 : 33 — " they fled, a7id went and told," etc. Now, as was most natu- 
ral — and, indeed, without a constant miracle, inevitable — the Synop- 
tics,* with all the wonderful verbal agreement which they exhibit, also 
differ occasionally in the reports Avhich they give of the words of 
Christ and others. And it is most important that the characteristic 
readings of their respective texts should in every place be restored. 
This will be evident when it is considered that these minute differ- 
ences clearly prove that the Evangelists did not copy from each other, 
as has often been maintained, but were original writers, and therefore 
independent witnesses to the Gospel history. In the Epistles the same 
tendency on the part of transcribers to secure a verbal harmony 
between parallel or similar passages may also to some extent be 
detected. Thus we find Col. i : 14 conformed to Eph. i : 7, so as 
to stand, " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the for- 
giveness of sins," while the true reading is, " In whom we have our 
redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." Many other examples of 
correction for the sake of uniformity might be quoted from these 
Epistles. This was, no doubt, deemed again by the copyists. But 
it was, on the contrary, a loss ; for every biblical student at the pres- 
ent day will acknowledge that, though the two epistles are strikingly 
coincident both in thought and expression, a real interest attaches to 
the distinctive forms by which they are respectively distinguished. 

Lastly, some various readings have probably been due to doctrinal :; 

* By this convenient expression is meant the first three Evangelists as distin- 
guished from the fourth. 



14 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

bias on the part of transcribers. Considering the many and violent 
controversies which have agitated the Church in the course of her 
history, this could scarcely fail to be the case. A doctrine will often 
hinge upon a single word. Whether, for example, Christ is spoken 
of as God at Acts 20 : 28, seems to involve the chief point at issue 
between the Orthodox and the Arians or Socinians. .A strong temp- 
tation was thus presented to copyists to tamper with the text ac- 
cording to their own predilections. But upon the whole this temp- 
tation was very successfully resisted. We have every reason to 
believe that the ancient transcribers in general performed their solemn 
task with the utmost fidelity. It is pretty clear, indeed, that the 
substitution of ** Joseph" for " His father," at Luke 2 : 33, and 
again of " Joseph and Mary," for ** His parents," at verse 41 of the 
same chapter, was made in the presumed interests of a very vital 
doctrine, that of the miraculous conception. And it might seem that 
the insertion in the text of i John 5 : 7, 8, was plainly due to a de- 
sire to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this famous passage 
may, after all, have been at first a mere marginal gloss, which was, at 
length, admitted to the text through inadvertence. We are unwill- 
ing to charge wilful perversion upon those men to whom we are 
indebted for the many manuscripts of the New Testament which have 
reached our day. Readers of the Revised Version will be able to 
judge for themselves how many or few of such alternative readings 
as have been placed on the margin can be ascribed to prejudice or 
unfaithfulness. For myself, I believe that these are exceedingly rare. 
And row having had before us the amount, the nature, and the 
causes of the various readings,* we proceed in the next chapter to 
consider their sources^ as found in manuscripts, ancient versions, and 
Patristic quotations, of the New Testament. 

* Additional illustrations of the causes of various readings treated of in this 
chapter will be found in chapters iv. and v. of this Part. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 1$ 



CHAPTER II. 

SOURCES OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The most immediate and important source of various readings, in 
other words, of the materials for comparative criticism, is, of course, 
that found in still-exiating manuscripts of the New Testament. As has 
been already suggested, a very great number of these are available for 
the settlement of the sacred text at the present day. There is a strik- \ 
ing contrast in this respect between the New Testament and other / 
ancient writings. While we have no manuscript of Sophocles and 
other classical authors that can be dated higher than the tenth cen- 
tury of our era, there are, in our possession, as will immediately be 
shown, manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the fourth ' 
and fifth centuries. And, while, in the case of the Greek and Latin 
classics, we sometimes feel reduced to only one manuscript as the 
fountain-head from which all the ot?iers have been derived, we have, 
in the case of the New Testament, multitudes of independent copies, j 
which enable us, with far greater certainty than can be felt in regard ( 
10 other ancient writings, to determine the original text. 

The manuscripts of the New Testament are divided into two classes, 
according to the manner in which they are written. For many cen- 
turies after the Christian era capital letters were employed throughout, 
hardly any distinction being made at the beginning of sentences, and 
no space being left between the words. The following verse in Eng- 
lish characters will give the reader some idea of the appearance pre- 
sented by these ancient manuscripts. 

THEBOOKOFTHEGENERATIONOFJESUSCHRISTTHESON 
OFDAVIDTHESONOFABRAHAM. Matt, i : i. 

Manuscripts thus written have been styled Uncials, while the others, 
written more in the form common among ourselves, are called Cur- 
sives. The line between the two modes of writing may be drawn some- f 
where about the tenth century. When we rise beyond that date few 
indeed are the manuscripts to which we can appeal for the materials 
of criticism. Besides some very precious fragments, there are only ! 
five copies of the New Testament at all complete which can be referred \ 
to a higher antiquity. These are to be dated, as we shall see, between , 
the fourth and the sixth century. 



1 6 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Biblical scholars have adopted the practice of designating the ancient 
manuscripts of the New Testament by the letters of the alphabet. 
This is a concise and convenient mode of referring to them, and has 
been generally accepted throughout the Christian world. It is only to 
be regretted that the several letters have not been assigned to the man- 
uscripts on any fixed principle, but simply as, in the progress of 
textual criticism, they happened to be applied. Neither the value nor 
antiquitv of the Codices is indicated by the letters naming them, or 
by the order in which they thus, naturally, fall to be described. 

A, or the Alexandrian Ma7iuscript. This is a very complete copy 
of the Greek Scriptures. It is bound in four volumes, of which the 
first three contain the Septuagint Version, and the fourth the New 
Testament. The only passages in which this manuscript is defective 
are St. Matthew's Gospel up to chap. 25 : 6, beginning with the Greek 
word which corresponds to the English "Go ye out ;" St. John's 
Gospel, from " that a man," chap. 6 : 50, to " thou sayest, " chap. 
8 : 52 ; and i Corinthians, from " I believe," chap. 4 : 13, to ** of 
me," chap. 12:6. The Book of Revelation, so apt to suffer in the 
manuscripts, has, happily, been preserved entire in the Alexandrian 
Codex, from the circumstance of its being followed by the Epistles of 
the Roman Clement. This was the first really valuable manuscript 
made use of for the purposes of criticism, and has been published in 
facsimile. It was brought to this country in 1628, having been sent 
in that year by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, as a present 
to Charles I. It is preserved in the British Museum. 

j Scholars are now agreed that the Alexandrian manuscript is to be 
; dated in the fifth century. Many have thought that its birthplace 
was Egypt, but the reasons assigned for this are not conclusive. It 
need not be doubted, however, that it was, at one time, at Alexandria, 
whence it has derived its name. Cyril was patriarch of that city be- 
fore being transferred to Constantinople, and probably took the man- 
uscript with him on his removal. We shall afterward have occasion 
to notice the testimony of this Codex with respect to the fam.ous pas- 
sage I Tim. 3 : 16. 

B, or the Vatican Manuscr^'pt. This is a most interesting and 
precious manuscript. Its external history cannot be traced further 
back than the year 1475, when it appears in the first published cata- 
logue of the Vatican Library. For a long time this manuscript, not- 
withstanding its known value, was but little used for the criticism of 
Scripture. In fact, it was not accessible to scholars. Many efforts 
were, from time to time, made to have it fully collated, but in vain. 
The history of these attempts has imparled a romantic but somewhat 




OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. IJ 

painful interest to the manuscript. Like many other treasures of art 
and literature, it was removed from Rome to Paris by the first Napo- 
leon. But no fully competent critic had then an opportunity of ex- 
amining it ; and on being restored to the Papal authorities it was 
very jealously guarded. At last Cardinal Mai prepared an edition of 
it, and this was issued in 1859. But it was found to have been con- 
structed on the most uncritical principles, and consequently to be full 
of errors. Biblical critics were thus still left in doubt as to the true 
reading of this manuscript in many passages. This continued till the i 
year 1868, when the New Testament text of the Codex was published 
in fac simile by two eminent scholars, under the auspices of Pio Nono. / 
This splendid edition was executed with the greatest care, and seems 
to leave little more to be desired in connection with the queen of all 
the manuscripts of the New Testament. 

There is no hesitation among scholars in dating the Vatican manu- / 
script at least as high as the fourth century. Some think that it may 
even lay claim to a still higher antiquity. The late eminent palaeog- 
rapher. Dr. Tregelles, remarks : * ' How much older this manuscript 
may be than the middle of the fourth century we have no means of 
determining." * It is certain that the letters in which it is written 
bear a striking resemblance to those in some of the Greek rolls found 
at Herculaneum. And all the other features which it presents testify 
to its great age. Unfortunately, it now wants the Epistle to the 
Hebrews from chap. 9 : 14, all the Pastoral Epistles, and the Book of 
Revelation. The witness which it bears to the true text in some in- 
teresting and important passages will be adverted to in a subsequent 
chapter. » 

C, or the Ephraem Manuscript. This is what is called z. palimpsest 
— that is, a manuscript in which two different works are found, the 
one having been written over the other. * The practice originated in 
the scarcity and dearness of parchment during the middle ages. And 
valuable works were, in this way, often sacrificed to others which were 
comparatively worthless. It need hardly be said how ignorant were 
the copyists of those times. Most of the clergy, even, knew scarcely 
anything about the Scriptures. According to George Buchanan, it 
was usual for the priests of his day to affirm that Luther had been the 
author of a book called the New Testament ! f When we take this 
profound ignorance into account, we are less surprised than we might 
otherwise be at finding that the sacred text itself was sometimes buried 
beneath a different work. In the case of the Ephraem Codex, it was 

* " Introduction to the New Testament," p.^i. 
t Eadie's " English Bible," ii. 311. 



1 8 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

some of the Greek writings of the Syrian divine Ephraem, which had 
been preferred to the New Testament, and hence the name given to 
the manuscript. It was not for a considerable period that the sacred 
text was discovered, and only in 1834 was it rendered generally 
legible by the application of a chemical tincture. The manuscript 
was soon afterward published. 

It is believed that this manuscript is to "be dated at least as early in 
the fifth century as the Alexandrian manuscript. Little is known of 
its history beyond the fact that it once belonged to a nephew of Leo 
X. It is now preserved in the National Library at Paris. So far as 
it has survived it is a very valuable copy of the New Testament. But 
gaps frequently occur in it, and two whole epistles. Second Thessalo- 
nians and Second John, have been altogether lost. 

D, or the Ma7iuscript of Beza. This manuscript once belonged to 
the eminent reformer Beza, and hence its name. It was presented by 
him in the year 1581 to the University of Cambridge, and on that 
account is sometimes referred to as the Cambridge manuscript. Beza 
tells us that he found it in 1562 lying neglected in the monastery of 
St. Irenaeus at Lyons. This manuscript seems to have been slightly 
used by Stephens in the preparation of his third edition, which came 
out in 1550. Nothing whatever is known of its previous history. 

The Codex of Beza is generally referred by critics to the sixth cen- 
tury. It contains only the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, 
with a few verses in Latin (5 : 11-15), from the Third Epistle of 
John. Many strange interpolations and manifest corruptions occur 
in it, but it is nevertheless of great value. The University published 
z. facsimile edition of it in 1793 ; and a very scholarly edition was 
issued in common type in 1864. This manuscript is remarkable as 
being the oldest which contains the section John 7 : 53 — 8 : 11, a pas- 
sage to be afterward considered. 

{*?, or the Sinaitic Manuscript. The late Professor Tischendorf dis- 
covered this manuscript in the most singular manner. Being in 1844 
at the convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, his attention was one 
day caught by some leaves of vellum set aside with others for lighting 
the stove. His quick and practised eye detected their antiquity, and 
he found on examination that<^they contained a portion of the Sep- 
tuagint. These leaves he easily obtained from the monks, and soon 
afterward published. But it was not till 1859 that he first saw the 
great manuscript of which they formed a part. He was that year 
travelling under the patronage of the Emperor of Russia. And being 
once more at the above-named monastery, he had on the 4th of Feb- 
ruary the whole manuscript which he had so ardently desired to find 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. I9 

puf into his hands. He looked at it with almost overwhelming joy 
and surprise. And the brethren could refuse nothing to one who 
was so highly honored by their great patron and protector, the Czar. 
Permission was readily accorded to him to copy the manuscript, and 
the Codex itself was soon afterward sent as a present to Alexander II. 
It is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, and was published 
in 1862 as a fitting memorial of the thousandth anniversary of the 
Russian Empire. 

This is an unspeakably precious manuscript. For one thing, it has 
the advantage over all the others of containing the New Testament 
complete. It also comprises the Greek text of the Epistle of Barna- 
bas, and part of that of the writings of Hernias, two of the Apostolic 
Fathers whose works had previously been known as a whole only 
through a Latin translation. Tischendorf was naturally disposed to 
exaggerate somewhat both the antiquity and value of his wonderful 
discovery. He even placed the Sinaitic earlier than the Vatican man- 
uscript, but in this few scholars are inclined to follow him. He also 
adopted some impossible readings on the sole authority of this Codex, 
and, in general, allowed it undue weight in the establishment of the 
New Testament text. But avoiding these extremes, the value of the 
manuscript is universally and gratefully admitted by scholars. It 
cannot be dated very much later than the Vatican Codex, belonging 
undoubtedly to the fourth century. And though it contains many 
obvious errors, it yields assistance of a kind most precious toward the 
settlement of the true text of the New Testament. 

Such are by far the most important of the Uncial manuscripts, and 
it is unnecessary here to describe any of the rest. Nor shall I enter 
on any description of the Cursives. As has been already stated, these 
are very numerous ; and though as a rule they are far less important 
than the more ancient manuscripts, some of them are, nevertheless, 
exceedingly valuable. It is, of course, quite conceivable that a Cur- 
sive manuscript should present a text really better tharu that of any 
existing Uncial. For though a manuscript may date, say from the 
eleventh century, it might have been accurately copied from one be- 
longing to the second. This is possible, though such may not be 
found actually to have been the case. And, therefore, all the Cur- 
sives, no less than the Uncials, must be most carefully examined and 
duly appreciated by the textual critic while he pursues those arduous 
labors which have it for their object to approximate as closely as pos- 
sible to the original text of Holy Scripture. 

The next most important source of various readings is that furnished 



20 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

by ancient versions of the New Testament. We have the utmost 
certainty that some of these were made at a date considerably higher 
than can be claimed for any manuscript at present known to exist. 
They thus furnish proof with regard to the prevailing text of the New 
Testament at a very early period in the history of Christianity. 

The following are the ancient versions which are less or more avail- 
able for the purposes of textual criticism. Some special drawbacks 
which exist to their use in this respect will be afterward briefly noticed. 

Syriac Versions. Of these the most important are the Peshito, the 
Philoxenian, the Harclean, and the Curetonian. By far the best of 
these is the Peshito (/.^., Simple), which is truly an admirable trans- 
lation. There is no doubt that it was made in the second century, 
and were we sure that we possessed it in its original form it would 
thus be of the very highest authority. The other Syriac versions do 
not rank high as translations, and the Curetonian embraces only 
fragments of the Gospels. 

Latin Versions. So prevalent was the Greek language in Rome for 
several generations after the commencement of our era, that no need 
of a translation was felt by the inhabitants of that city. Accordingly, 
the first Latin version appears to have been made not in Italy but in 
North Africa. We know nothing of its history. It was used by Ter- 
tullian and others about the beginning of the third century. Some ex- 
cellent manuscripts containing it still exist. The very learned St. 
Jerome set himself to the revision of this version about the end of the 
fourth century. He improved it greatly both in regard to style and 
fidelity to the original ; but it was not till two centuries had elapsed 
that his work took the place of the Old Lati7i^ and became the Vulgate 
of the Roman Church. 

Gothic Versioji. This version was made by Bishop TJlphilas about 
the middle of the fourth century. It is not now known to exist in its 
original completeness. There is a celebrated " Silver Manuscript" 
of the Gospels preserved in the University of Upsala. The letters of 
this handsome manuscript are marvellously uniform, and its name is 
derived from the fact that they are written throughout in silver, except 
the initial letters of sections, which are written in gold. Belonging, 
as the version of Ulphilas does,^ to so high an antiquity as the fourth 
century, it is possessed of great weight in determining the text which 
had then become prevalent in the Church. 

Egyptian Versions. There are two Egyptian versions, which are 
now known respectively as the Memphitic and the Thebaic. Before 
the fact of their independence was established, they both went under 
the common name of Coptic* This appellation was derived from Cop- 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 21 

tos, a very ancient city of Upper Egypt. The term Memphltic points 
out Jthe version which was used in Lower Egypt, and was taken from 
the capital city of the district ; while Thebaic indicates the version 
used in Upper Egypt, and was, in like manner, derived from the chief 
town of the country. The Thebaic version is supposed, on good 
grounds, to have beeu formed in the first half of the third century, 
and to have been followed by the Memphltic not much later. Both 
versions will be found more and more valuable for the purposes of 
criticism the more fully they are studied. Besides these, there are 
some fragments of a version which has been called the Bashniuric^ 
and which was evidently related to the Thebaic. 

The Armenian Version. This version cannot be placed higher than 
the fifth century. It seems to have been begun soon after the Council 
of Ephesus, A.D. 431. Up to that period the Armenian Christians 
appear to have used the Syriac version ; but two native scholars who 
had attended the Council brought home with them the New Testament 
in Greek, and from that a translation was made into the language of 
the country. The Armenian version cannot be deemed of very great 
importance in textual criticism. 

The ^thiopic Version. This is a translation of the Scriptures in 
the ancient language of Abyssinia. It seems to have been formed 
about the sixth or seventh century. There is every reason to believe 
that it was taken immediately from the Greek, though the meaning of 
the original was frequently mistaken. No very exact edition has yet 
been issued, and the version is not possessed of much authority. 

The other ancient versions of the New Testament are the Georgian 
(sixth century), the Arabic (several recensions, the most ancient be- 
longing to the eighth century), Slavonic (ninth century), Anglo-Saxon 
(from the Latin, eighth to eleventh century), and Persian versions (of 
varying and doubtful dates). These versions, with all later ones, 
though taken from the Greek, are too modern to have much weight in 
the settlement of the true text. 

The deductions which must be made from the value of even the 
most ancient versions as testifying to the true text of Scripture are 
many and serious. First, their genuine readings are often doubtful. 
It is obvious that they were as liable to corruption in the process of 
being transcribed as the New Testament itself, or even more so, since 
greater pains would naturally be taken in copying the sacred original 
than a mere translation. Again, there is reason to believe that some 
of the most valuable versions, such as the Syriac Peshito, do not now 
exist in their primitive condition. They seem to have been conformed 
to the prevalent text of the fourth century, and thus fail us as witnesses 



22 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

to that which was more ancient. On this account we cannot confi- 
dently press the authority of the existing Peshito in behalf, for e^ijam- 
ple, of the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Again, in some few in- 
stances the authors of the versions appear from doctrinal bias to have 
departed from the original text. Thus Ulphilas, who had adopted 
Arian views, has inserted in the Gothic version, at Philipp. 2 : 6, the 
words " likeness to God," which would never suggest the true Greek 
text implying " equality with God." Lastly, even the best versions 
have frequently mistaken the meaning of the original, and may thus 
tend only to mislead as respects the genuine text. Suppose, in illus- 
tration, that a question were to arise with regard to the Greek expres- 
sion corresponding to the English words "in the bush," at Mark 
12:26, and Luke 20:37. In that case, the Authorized Version 
would inevitably suggest a wrong ^preposition, since it has here quite 
mistranslated the Greek. The meaning of the original is not " in the 
bush," as if referring to locality, but *' «/ the Bush," denoting that 
portion of the Old Testament which was known among the Jews un- 
der the title of "the Bush." On all these grounds, therefore, the 
biblical scholar must use the ancient versions as witnesses to the gen- 
uine text of Scripture with great caution and discrimination. 

The only remaining source of various readings in the New Testa- 
ment is that found in the citations of its text by ancient writers. And 
here it might at first be thought that we have access to more primitive 
and therefore more valuable testimony than that which is furnished by 
either manuscripts or versions. The stream of quotations from the 
New Testament begins even in the first century, and flows on with 
ever-increasing volume in the succeeding generations. AV^hen we re- 
flect that Clement of Rome begins to quote from the sacred writings 
so early as a.d. 97, when his epistle seems to have been written, and 
that he is followed by such voluminous writers as Justin Martyr and 
Irenseus in the second century, as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, and Origen, in the third century, it might well be imagined 
that we should thus obtain most valuable and trustworthy guidance as 
to the primitive text of the New Testament. 

But here again there are very serious drawbacks. No doubt, these 
early Fathers quote most copiously frcm Scripture, so that the sub- 
stance of the whole New Testament could easily be collected from 
their pages. But important deductions must be made from the value 
of their writings as authorities in textual criticism. For, first, the 
manuscripts of their works which we possess are comparatively modern 
— few indeed rising above the tenth century, and thus their genuine 
readings are often doubtful. And, next, they generally quote from 




OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 23 

memory, not feeling the need, and not possessing the means, of aim- 
ing at that verbal exactness called for at the present day. They had 
none of those facilities of reference which we possess. The turning 
to a passage and verifying it, would, in their case, have implied an 
amount of labor, of which, with our Bibles divided into chapters and 
verses, we can hardly conceive. Besides, there can be no doubt that 
many passages would come to be loosely and popularly quoted, with- 
out any suspicion that a departure was thus made from the true text. 
This happens constantly among ourselves with respect to the Author- 
ized Version. How often will one see or hear Deut. ;^$ : 25, quoted 
thus : " As thy day is so shall thy strength be," whereas the true read- 
ing is, " As thy days," etc.* 

On the whole, then, there is reason for acquiescing in the following 
judgment with regard to the value, as respects textual criticism, to be 
attached to the quotations made by ancient writers from the New 
Testament. " Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and 
not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it often fails where we 
should most wish for information ; but the Fathers were better theo- 
logians than critics ; they frequently quoted loosely or from memory, 
often no more of a passage than their immediate purpose required ; 
what they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change 
on the part of copyists and unskilful editors ; they can therefore be 
implicitly trusted — even as to the manuscripts which lay before them 
— only in the comparatively few places wherein their own direct ap- 
peal to their codices, or the course of their argument, or the current 
of their exposition, renders it manifest what readings they approved. 
In other cases the same author perpetually cites the self-same text 
under two or more various forms ; in the Gospels it is often impossi- 
ble to determine to which of the three earlier ones reference is made ; 
and, on the whole, scriptural quotations from ecclesiastical writers 
are of so much less consideration than ancient translations, that where 
they are single and unsupported, they may safely be disregarded 
altogether. An express citation, however, by a really careful Father 
of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for example), if sup- 
ported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the best ver- 
sions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the 
reading which it favors."} 

* See, for a numerous list of such misquotations, Eadie's "English Bible," 
ii. 328 ff. 

f Scrivener's Introduction, p. 368. 



24 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



CHAPTER III. 

HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE GREEK TEXT ON WHICH THE 
AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS FOUNDED. 

When an English version of the New Testament is put into our 
hands as furnishing a transcript in our own language of God's revela- 
tion of Himself through Jesus Christ, it is of the most vital impor- 
tance to be assured of the trustworthiness of the text on 'which that 
version has been based. Without this everything else must be com- 
paratively worthless. What we want to know is the exact message 
which has been addressed to our face by Heaven. And the first 
essential to this is purity of the original text. It matters not how 
smoothly a version may read, how pleasing may be its contents, or 
how venerable even may be the antiquity which it claims. The first 
and gravest question to be asked regarding it has respect to the faith- 
fulness with which the text on which it was based represented the true 
and original word of God. How, then, we anxiously inquire, does the 
case stand concerning this point with the Authorized English Version? 

Before being able to give a full answer to this question, it is neces- 
sary to trace the history of the earliest printed editions of the Greek 
New Testament. This history will gradually lead us on to the text 
which was made use of in the preparation of the Authorized Version, 
and we shall be enabled to form a judgment respecting its character. 

We cannot but feel it somewhat remarkable that so long a time 
elapsed between the invention of the art of printing and the passing of 
an edition of the Greek New Testament through the press. It is 
well known that the first book ever printed was the Bible, but this was 
in the form of the Vulgate. A Latin edition of the Scriptures, very 
handsomely got up, issued from the press at Mentz in 1452 ; and a 
few copies of this interesting and precious publication are known to 
be still in existence at the present day. The Hebrew Bible was also 
printed, under the auspices of some wealthy Jews, in 1488. But the 
century which had witnessed the invention of printing was allowed to 
close without any attempt having been made to prepare a printed 
edition of the Greek New Testament. Some brief passages of the 
Gospels from the first chapter of St. Luke— the sacred songs of the 
Virgin Mary and of Zacharias — had, indeed, been added to a Greek 
edition of the Psalms printed at Milan in 1481 ; but no one as yet seems 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 25 

to have conceived the idea of issuing a printed edition of the whole 
New Testament. The cause of this probably was that the Greek 
language was still but very imperfectly known to theologians. The 
** new learning" was as yet only struggling through many difficulties 
into acceptance, and gradually winning to itself the admiration and 
affection of those noble men who afterward cultivated it with so much 
energy and devotedness. 

To the able and excellent Cardinal Ximenes, Primate of Spain, be- 
longs the honor of having first projected an edition of the entire Greek 
New Testament. His plan was to embrace it in a Polyglot Bible, in- 
tended to include both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the 
Greek Septuagint version with the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos and 
the Latin Vulgate. The fifth volume, which is devoted to the New 
Testament, was first printed, and it bears on its last page, as the date 
of its completion, January loth, 15 14. But its publication was de- 
layed, apparently, at first, with the view of waiting for the remaining 
volumes. The last of these, numbered as the fourth, is stated to 
have been finished on July loth, 15 17. But the exemplary prelate 
who had originated and superintended this great undertaking died 
soon afterward (November 8th, 15 17), and the issue of the volume 
was, in consequence, still further delayed. It was not till March 2 2d, 
1520, that Pope Leo X. formally sanctioned its publication. Thus 
came forth at length what is known as the Complutensian edition of the 
New Testament, Complutum being the Latin name for Alcala, where 
the work was prepared. 

Meanwhile, however, important steps had been taken in another 
quarter. The illustrious Erasmus comes into view, a man to whom 
modern thought is, in so many ways, under such deep and lasting 
obligations. That great scholar was in England in 15 15, and on April 
17th of that year he received a request from Froben, an eminent 
printer at Basle, to prepare for publication an edition of the Greek 
New Testament. Though encumbered by other literary labors, Eras- 
mus set about this work with characteristic diligence, and completed 
it within the too short period of a few months — by February, 1516. 
The work was immediately published, and thus the original text of the 
New Testament was, for the first time, given to the world. 

No small eagerness would, naturally, be shown by scholars to possess 
the sacred text. Accordingly, we find that the demand was, for those 
days, great. The first edition of Erasmus was reprinted, with correc- , 
tions amounting to about 200, by Aldus, at Venice, in 15 18. A second 
edition, with more than 300 improvements, was issuedTby Erasmus him- 
self in 1519. This was followed by a third edition in 1522, chiefly re- 



26 COMPANION TO TPIE REVISED VERSION 

markable as containing, for the first time, the famous text i John 5 : 7. 
Erasmus had not till now seen the Complutensian edition, but he was 
able to avail himself of it in the preparation of his own fourth, which 
came out in 1527. He died in 1536, having issued a fifth edition 
in the previous year, differing only in four places from the preceding. 
The fourth edition of Erasmus is thus the most important, and be- 
came the basis of all subsequent texts, until what is known as the 
** Received Text" was formed. 

After the death of Erasmus an edition of the Greek New Testament 
was published by Colinaeus at Paris in 1543. But, although this 
edition was corrected in more than a hundred places from the authority 
of additional manuscripts, it may be left out of account as having ex- 
ercised little subsequent influence. The true successor of Erasmus in 
this department was Robert Stephens, the famous Parisian printer. 
He issued two editions, in 1546 and 1549, having availed himself in 
these of some manuscripts in the Royal Library, and of the Complu- 
tensian text. But his great edition was the third, issued in 1550. 
This edition is remarkable as containing the first collection of various 
readings, amounting, it has been reckoned, to 2194. But though these 
had been collected from a considerable number of manuscripts, no 
critical use was made of them. The text of Erasmus was closely fol- 
lowed, and readings found in it were even clung to v/hen opposed to 
the authority of all the manuscripts. The fourth edition of Stephens 
was published at Geneva in 155 1. In this edition the New Testament 
is, for the first time, divided into verses — an invention of Stephens. 
The text remained the same as in the previous edition. 

Beza, the Reformer, next appears as an editor of the Greek New 
Testament. He published five editions, the first in 1565, the second 
in 1576, the third in 1582, the fourth in 1589, and the fifth in 1598. 
These editions varied somewhat among themselves, but were based 
throughout upon the text of Stephens. 

And now we have reached the interesting and important point of 
this sketch, as the history of the printed text of the New Testament 
just given has led us very near the date at which the Authorized 
English Version began to be pade. It was commenced about 1604, 
when the above-named Greek texts were, in one form or another, gen- 
erally circulated. Which of them, we ask with eagerness, formed the 
original from which our common English translation was derived ? To 
this question the answer is, that Beza's edition of 1589 was the one 
usually followed. It had been based on Stephens's edition of 1550, 
and that again had been derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, 
published in 1 5 2 7 . Such is the parentage of the Authorized Version— 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 2/ 

Beza, Stephens, Erasmus. What manuscript authority, let us ask, is 
thus represented ? 

Beginning with Erasmus, we find that his resources were meagre in- 
deed, and that even the materials which he had were not fully utilized. 
It has already been noticed how hastily his first edition was prepared ; 
indeed, he himself said of it that it " was rather tumbled headlong into 
the world than edited." The manuscripts which he had in his posses- 
sion are still preserved, one, having been recovered some years ago 
after long being lost. Some of them bear in themselves the corrections 
which he made, and show too obvious marks of having been used as 
"copy" by the printer. They consisted of the following. In the 
Gospels he principally used a Cursive manuscript of the fifteenth or 
sixteenth century. This may be seen at Basle, and is admitted 
by all to be of a very inferior character. He also possessed an- 
other Cursive manuscript of the twelfth century, or earlier, and 
occasionally referred to it. But though this is an excellent manu- 
script in the Gospels — one of the very best of the Cursives — 
Erasmus was ignorant of its value, and made little use of it. In 
the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed a Cursive manuscript of 
the thirteenth or fourteenth century, with occasional reference to 
another of the fifteenth century. Both these were of the ordinary type 
usually exhibited by the later manuscripts. For the Apocalypse he 
had only one mutilated manuscriot. He had thus no documentary 
materials for publishing a complete edition of the Greek Testament. 
The consequence would have been that some verses must have been 
left wanting had not Erasmus taken the Vulgate and conjecturally re- 
translated the Latin into Greek. Hence has arisen the remarkable 
fact that in the text from which our Authorized Version was formed, 
and in the ordinary uncritical editions of the Greek current at the 
present day, there were, and are, words in the professed original for 
which no divine authority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due 
to the learning and imagination of Erasmus. 

As stated above, he availed himself of the Complutensian text to 
some extent in his subsequent editions. Scholars have been unable to 
ascertain with exactness the manuscripts which were employed in its 
formation. It was at one time thought that the famous Codex B was 
one of them. But this has been clearly disproved, and the manuscript 
authority on which it was based has been shown by internal evidence 
to have been not ancient, but modern. There is also some ground for 
suspecting that the editors occasionally, though rarely, allowed an un- 
due influence to the Latin Vulgate. In printing the^ Old Testament 
they gave the place of honor in the centre to the Latin, surrounding it 



28 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

on either side by the original Hebrew and the Septuagint translation. 
On this they make the curious and somewhat suggestive remark, that 
the Latin thus placed was like Christ crucified between the two 
thieves ! The one thief was the Greek Church, which they regarded 
as heretical ; and the other was the nation of the Jews, who were 
charged with having corrupted the Hebrew text wherever it differed 
from the Latin. 

Stephens, who succeeded Erasmus in the work of editing the Greek 
Testament, had, as we have seen, a number of additional manuscripts 
at his command. Among these was one at least undoubtedly ancient, 
Codex D, formerly described. But he made very little use either of 
it or of any of the others in his possession. Almost the only impor- 
tant departure which Stephens made from the Erasmian text was in 
the Apocalypse, in which book he took advantage of the far better 
readings supplied by the Complutensian edition. 

Beza received from Stephens a collection of various readings derived 
from no fewer than some five-and-twenty manuscripts, but he made 
little or no critical use of them. He was totally unaware of the value 
of the manuscript which bears his name, and thought that its publica- 
tion was rather to be deprecated. He left the text substantially as he 
had received it from Stephens, who, again, for his part, rarely deserts 
the fifth edition of Erasmus. 

Thus, then, stood the text of the Greek New Testament when the 
revisers of the Bishops' Bible set themselves to form from it our pres- 
ent Authorized English Version. Not one of the four most ancient 
manuscripts was then known to be in existence. Even Codex D, 
which was known, had scarcely any weight assigned to it, and the 
whole Greek text had been based upon a very few modern manu- 
scripts. The ancient versions had not been examined. No careful 
investigation had been made into the testimony to the primitive text 
borne by the Fathers. Textual criticism was still in its infancy, the 
materials for it had not been gathered, the principles of the science 
had not been studied, and the labors of Mill, Bentley, Griesbach, 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and other great scholars, to secure 
the purity of the text of the New Testament, were as yet unheard of, 
and only to be put forth in the course of many future generations. 

In these circumstances can it be wondered at that vast multitudes of 
changes will be found in the Revised English Version, owing to an 
amended text ? The wonder really is that they are so few, or, at 
least, that they are, in general, of such small importance. When we 
trace, as has been briefly done, the parentage of our English Bible, 
and when we see on what a slender basis of authority it rests, when 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 29 

we confront with this the enormous wealth of materials for settling 
the true Greek text which we possess at the present day, and the 
amount of labor which has been expended in applying them, we might 
well fear that the alterations requiring to be made in the Bible with 
which we have all our days been familiar should be of the most revo- 
lutionary character. But, blessed be God, such is not the case. No 
doctrine of the faith is in the slightest cjegree affected. False sup- 
ports of important doctrines may be removed, and true defences of 
them may be supplied, but that is all. The Bible remains, for all 
practical purposes, totally unaffected. That is one grand result of 
the labors of the New Testament Revision Company, for which all 
English Christians have good reason to be thankful. They now know 
the utmost that biblical science demands. No suspicion need in 
future haunt them that the scriptural truths which they love are inse- 
cure. These have been proved to rest on an immovable foundation, 
and they will endure as long as the Divine Word that reveals them, 
" which liveth and abideth for ever." 

But more than this, every loyal Christian heart should surely rejoice 
to have access, in as pure a form as possible, to the message sent us 
by our Father in heaven. That is the great positive work which has 
been aimed at by the New Testament Company, and the fulfilment of 
which is presented in the Revised Version. English readers of the 
Scriptures have now the opportunity of making themselves acquainted 
with the New Testament in a form more nearly representing the 
primitive text than they ever had before. Most of the changes made 
hardly affect the sense, but many even of these alterations are highly 
interesting. Some few others are of great importance, and will natu- 
rally attract more attention from readers of the Revised Version. To 
these two classes of changes which have been required by an amend- 
ment of the text we shall advert at some length in the two following 
chapters. 



30 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



CHAPTER IV. 

EXAMPLES OF MINOR CHANGES CAUSED BY A CHANGE OF TEXT. 

It may be that at first not a few of the changes or omissions in the 
Revised Version, due to a change in the original text, will be felt dis- 
agreeable by the English reader. The old familiar rhythm is dis- 
turbed, and the ear longs for the words to which it has been accus- 
tomed. It must be owned, too, that there are some changes and 
omissions due to the cause referred to which may worthily seem 
matter of regret. Thus, we can hardly exchange the beautiful pre- 
cept, " Be courteous," found at i Pet. 3 : 8, in the Authorized Ver- 
sion, for the apparently tamer expression, " humble-minded," in the 
Revised Version, without feeling that some loss has been incurred. 
And we cannot read Mark 9 : 3, or Mark 9 : 24, without wishing that 
the words "as snow" and "with tears," which add to the graphic 
style of the narrative, had been retained. In the majority of cases, 
however, the changes caused by a change of text will, on considera- 
tion, commend themselves as improvements. They will be found to 
impart greater clearness, terseness, or force, to the Version. Thus, 
there is a vividness at Mark i : 27, " And they were all amazed, inso- 
much that they questioned among themselves, saying. What is this ? 
a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even the unclean 
spirits, and they obey him," which does not belong to the Authorized 
Version. Thus, again, it will be felt to be with the remarkable varia- 
tion which occurs at 2 Cor. i : 20, where we read in the Revised 
Version, " For how many soever be the promises of God, in him is 
the yea : wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of 
God through us." As has been well observed, the ''yea" here " de- 
notes the fulfilment of the promise on the part of God, and 'Amen ' the 
recognition and thanksgiving on the part of the Church, a distinction 
which is obliterated by the received reading."* So, at i John 5 : 13, it 
is an obvious gain to get rid of t;he clumsy and almost absurd repetition 
which occurs in the Authorized Version, and to read simply, " These 
things have I written unto you, that ye may know ye have eternal life, 
unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." But whether 
the true readings be deemed improvements or not, they should always 
be welcomed simply on the ground of their genuineness. To find 

* L'ghtfoot, " On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament," p. 32. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. ■ 3 1 

out what is true is the supreme object of biblical science ; and while, 
no doubt, there may often seem an artificial attractiveness about what 
is erroneous, there should always be felt a sovereign majesty in truth. 

With these remarks, let us look at some of the minor changes which 
have been made in the Revised Version owing to a change of text. I 
shall first take a few from each of the Gospels, and then some from 
the other books of the New Testament. 

St Matthew's Gospel. At chap. 5:22, the Revised Version omits 
the words " without a cause," The evidence from manuscripts, ver- 
sions, and Fathers, is here not quite conclusive, but the internal evi- 
dence is clear. It is obvious that a strong temptation presented itself 
to transcribers to insert the words, in order to soften the apparent 
harshness of the precept, whereas, had they existed in the primitive 
text, it is scarcely possible to account for their having been dropped. 
There is little, if any, doubt, therefore, that they ought to disappear. 
At chap. 18 : 17 we read in the Revised Version, " Why askest thou 
me of that which is good ? One there is who is good : but if thou 
wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments." The external 
evidence is decidedly in favor of this reading, embracing, as it does, 
j^, B, D, etc., but it is the internal evidence which is conclusive. We 
formerly saw how prone copyists were to conform parallel passages, 
and here St. Matthew's text, as represented in the Authorized Version 
has been harmonized with those of St. Mark and St. Luke. Besides 
the question of the young ruler, *' What good thing shall I do ?" is 
aptly answered by the words, " Why askest thou me of that which is 
good ?" At chap. 25 : 6 we read in the Revised Version, " But at 
midnight a cry is made. Behold the bridegroom : come ye forth to 
meet him." The word ** cometh" is omitted on overwhelming 
authority ; it had evidently slipped in as a supplement from the work- 
ing of the mind of the transcriber on the passage before him. 

St, Mark's Gospel. At chap. 6 : 20 we read in the Revised Ver- 
sion, " Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a 
holy, and kept him safe ; and when he heard him, he was 7nuch per- 
plexed, and heard him gladly." Here the common reading, "And 
did many things," is undoubtedly supported by many of the best 
authorities ;■ but the case is such that we cannot conceive of the 
unusual Greek word for " perplexed" being substituted for the very 
common word for " did," while the converse supposition that a tran- 
scriber here meeting with an unfamiliar expression changed it into one 
with which he was well acquainted, is easy and natural. At chap. 
9 : 22, 23, we read in the Revised Version, " If th^ou canst do any- 
thing, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said unto 



32 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

him, If thou canst ! all things are possible to him that believeth." 
This is a beautiful emendation. Jesus takes up the doubting words 
of the father, and, after repeating them, adds that strong assertion of 
the power of faith which follows. The change is abundantly support- 
ed by ancient authority ; and it is obvious that the enfeebling 
" believe" of the common text has somehow slipped in as a supple- 
ment. 

6*/. Lukes Gospel. At chap. i6 : 9 we find the interesting change 
of " it" for "ye," and read in the Revised Version, "Make to 
yourselves friends out of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when 
it shall fail, they (the friends whom you have thus made) may receive 
you into the eternal tabernacles." At chap. 24 : 17 a somewhat 
different turn is given to the narrative by the insertion of a Greek 
verb in the text, and we read thus in the Revised Version, " "VVhat 
communications are these that ye have one with another as ye walk ? 
And thqy stood still, looking sad." Again, at verse 46 of the same 
chapter, the proper reading is, *' Thus it is written that the Christ 
should suffer," the common text having been derived from verse 26, 
according to a process familiar to transcribers. 

St. Johns Gospel. At chap. 6 : 11 we find in the common text an 
obvious case of accommodation to the parallel passage in Matt. 
14 : 19, and the verse properly runs as in the Revised Version, 
** Jesus therefore took the loaves, and having given thanks, he distrib- 
uted to them that were set down." At chap. 13 : 24 we have in the 
Revised Version a characteristic utterance of St. Peter which is lost 
in the ordinary text. He seems to have imagined that John, as 
specially the confidant of Christ, would know what the disciples 
wished to ascertain, and exclaimed, " Tell us who it is of whom he 
speaketh." At chap. 20 : 16 the amended text has restored the ex- 
pression " in the Hebrew tongue," which, by the exception which it 
specially marks out, serves to indicate the language generally made 
use of in public intercourse by Christ and His disciples. 

The Acts of the Apostles. At chap. 15 : 23 we find an interesting 
example of the alteration which may take place in the meaning from 
a very slight change in the text. The words " and the" are simply 
omitted, and we then read, "The apostles and the elder brethren," 
instead of " The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren." At 
chap. 16 : 7 we find an exception to the general rule that a shorter 
reading is to be preferred to a longer, for the true text undoubtedly 
is, " the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not." At chap. 18 : 5 we find 
a striking illustration of the tendency to replace what was unusual or 
not understood by what was common and familiar ; for " Paul was 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 33 

pressed in the spirit" has there taken the place of the true text, 
" Paul was constrained by the word." 

The Epistle to the Romans. A very remarkable change has been 
made at chap. 4:19. In accordance with all the great Uncials, the 
negative in the verse is omitted, so as to read, " he considered his 
own body now become dead," the point being that, though he fully 
took into account his own state, yet he did not stumble at the Divine 
promise. At chap. 5:1, after long hesitation, criticism has clearly 
decided that instead of "we have, ' ' the true reading is ' * let us have. 
The text of B in this passage is now certainly known to be in favor of 
that which stands in the Revised Version, and it is supported by A, 
C, D, f<, the most important versions, and many of the Fathers. At 
chap. 7:6a reading was introduced by Beza into his third edition, 
which was a mere conjecture of -his own, and is supported by not a 
single manuscript or version. It stands, however, in the common 
English Bible, which translates it, '' that bei7ig dead Tihtxo.m we were 
held," instead of the true text as rendered in the Revised Version, 
" having died to that wherein we were holden." At chap. 16 : 5 we 
should certainly read " the first fruits of Asia," instead of " the first 
fruits of Achaia, " the mistaken reading having probably arisen fron 
the transcriber having i Cor. 16 : 15 in his mind. 

The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The most interesting changes 
in this epistle are those which have been made in the eleventh chapter,' 
which contains an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
At ver. 24 the words "Take, eat," have been omitted, as having 
scarcely a shadow of authority. They were doubtless interpolated 
from Matt. 26 : 26. In the same verse the word " broken" is also 
left out ; it was probably a supplement introduced by the copyists. 
In ver. 26 " this cup" becomes " the cup" in the Revised Version ; 
the common text was due to a desire for uniformity in the two clauses. 
In ver. 29 the word translated "unworthily" has been omitted as 
certainly spurious ; it was brought in from ver. 27, where it is as 
certainly genuine. At chap. 13:3a various reading occurs, which, 
though very properly not placed in the text, will be found in the 
margin of the Revised Version as having very great support from 
excellent authorities. It deserves notice as illustrating how one Greek 
word might be mistaken for another which it closely resembled. 
Here a difference of only a single letter leads to the so great difference 
of rendering in English, as, " that I may be burned," and " that I 
may glory."* ^^ 

* The two Greek words are Kav^auiiai and Kavxwcofiac. 




34 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

The Second Epistle to the Cortnthia?is. There are no very noticeable 
alterations made in this epistle owing to a change of text. Perhaps 
the most interesting is at chap. 12 : 19, where quite a different turn 
is given to the passage in the Revised Version, in consequence of one 
woid being altered in the original. The Apostle knew well that his 
elaborate vindication of himself might be misundefstood by the Corin- 
thians, as if he were anxious to gain their favorable judgment on his 
conduct, and to meet this mistake he says : " Ye think all this time 
that we are excusing ourselves unto you. In the sight of God speak 
we in Christ. But all things, beloved, are for your edifying." 

The Epistles to the Galatians, Epi. jsians^ Philippians^ Colossians. At 
Gal. 4:14a new turn is given to the passage by the pronoun being 
changed in the original. St. Paul, instead of there speaking of " my 
temptation," says, " that which was a temptation to you in my flesh 
ye despised not nor rejected," surely far more in accordance with the 
context. At Eph. 5 : 29 we get rid in the Revised .Version of the 
strange declaration, " of his flesh, and of his bones," and read sim- 
ply, in accordance with the true text, ** we are members of his 
body." At Philipp. i : 16, 17, the two verses must, by overwhelming 
authority, be transposed, and read as in the Revised Version. At 
Col. 2 : 18 we come upon a passage presenting great difficulty both 
as to the true text and the right interpretation. But evidence leads 
us clearly to reject the " not" found before " seen" in the common 
text. The apostle is blaming those who dwell in the region of sense 
rather than that of faith, and this is the meaning given to his words in 
the Revised Version. It is evident that the ancient copyists did not 
understand the passage, and that the insertion of the negative was due 
to their desire of making it, as they thought, intelligible. 

The Epistles to the Thessalojiians, and the Pastoral Epistles. Few 
changes worth notice have been made in the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians on account of a change of text. It may be noted, however, 
that the usual designation of our Saviour in these epistles is " our 
Lord Jesus," and not "our Lord Jesus Christ." See i Thess. 
2 : 19 ; 3 : II ; 3 : 13 ; 2 Thess. i : 12 (first clause) ; and compare 
2 : 8 in the 'Revised Version. The full title occurs at i Thess. 
I : I ; 5 : 28 ; 2 Thess. i : 2, etc., but the shorter form seems char- 
acteristic of these epistles. On the other hand, " Christ Jesus," and 
not " Jesus Christ," appears as the favorite appellation for our Lord 
in the Pastoral Epistles. Compare with Authorized Version i Tim. 
4 : 6 ; 5 : 21 ; 2 Tim. i : i ; 2 : 3 ; Tit. i : 4, in the Revised Version. 
It deserves in this connection to be noticed further that the two ver- 
sions are coincident in the use of the form " Christ Jesus" in the fol- 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 35 

lowing passages : i Tim. i : 12 ; i : 14 ; 2:5; 3 : 13 ; 6 : 13 ; 

2 Tim. I : i (second clause) ; i : 2 ; i : 9 ; i : 13 ; 2 : 1 ; 2 : 10 ; 

3 : 12 ; 3 : 15. The title " Christ Jesus" thus seems in its very frequent 
use a marked peculiarity of the Pastoral Epistles, and serves as a sort 
of nexus to bind them all together. 

The Epistle to Philemon and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Almost the 
only changes of any interest in the Epistle to Philemon are at ver. 2, 
where we read, ** and to Apphia our sister," for " and to our beloved 
Apphia," the epithet " beloved " having apparently been substituted 
to correspond to ver. i ; and *M had," for '* we have," in ver. 7, in 
which some critics also read " grace" instead of " joy," but without 
sufficient authority. At Heb. 4 : 2 overwhelming critical evidence 
compels us to accept the somewhat strange rendering of the Revised 
Version. Many critics of high name have been tempted to abide by 
the apparently far simpler and more satisfactory reading which is 
represented in the Authorized Version ; but faithfulness to the laws 
of evidence and grammar will not permit of such a course. At chap. 
10 : 34, the personal reference to the writer of the epistle is exchanged 
for the general reference to " them that were in bonds," and this 
change has an important bearing on the very difficult question of 
authorship. At chap. 11 : 13 the Greek words rendered " and were 
persuaded of them" have no right whatever to a place in the text. 
The beautiful and exact rendering of the original here given in the 
Revised Version will be noticed afterward, when we come to treat of 
mistakes of translation in the Authorized Version. 

The Catholic Epistles. In the Epistle of James the remarkable 
change which is found in the Revised Version at chap, i : 19 is due 
to the change of a single letter in the Greek.* The evidence is deci- 
sive ; and the principle here applies that a more difficult reading is to be 
^preferred to one that is easy and frequent. In the first Epistle of Peter, 
at chap. 2:21, the confusion of the pronouns found in the Authorized 
Version, which reads, " Christ also suffered for us^ leaving us an ex- 
ample, that ye should follow His steps," is, by a change of text, 
escaped in the Revised Version. The change made at 2 Pet. 3 ; 2, 
which cannot fail to strike the reader, has the sanction of all the great 
Uncials, and of the best versions. In like manner the insertion of 
the words " and we are," in i John 3:1, rests on the most decisive 
manuscript and Patristic authority. In 2 John ver. 8 the confusion of 
pronouns again found in the Authorized Version is by a change of text 
corrected in the Revised Version. In 3 John ver. 12 the glaring in- 
congruity of addressing in the plural Gaius, to whom the Epistle is 

* The two Greek words are Inrs and dart. 



36 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

addressed, is removed by the adoption of the correct reading, " thou 
knowest." In the Epistle of Jude ver. i, through a mistake of one 
Greek. word for another,* there is read in the Authorized Version, 
''sanctified by God the Father," instead oi '' beloved in God the 
Father." 

The Apocalypse. As might be inferred from what has been said in 
the preceding chapter, the text of the Book of Revelation on which the 
Authorized Version rests was of the most unsatisfactory character. 
Accordingly, numerous corrections of the original have led to change 
in the Revised Version. One of the most important of these altera- 
tions is found at chap. 17:8. The Authorized Version refers at the 
close of this verse to " the beast, that was, and is not, and yet is""— 
truly an enigmatical declaration — but by substitution of the true text 
we attain to the more intelligible statement which the reader will here 
find in the Revised Version. Some interesting changes have also 
been made in the concluding chapter of the Book. Thus, in the third 
clause of the eleventh verse a very puzzling reading of the common 
text — which, by the way, ought not to be rendered as in the Author- 
ized Version, but can only mean, "let him be justiHed still" — has 
been exchanged for one which yields a plain and satisfactory sense — 
" let him do righteousness still." And in the fourteenth verse, in- 
stead of these words of the Authorized Version, " Blessed are they 
that do his commandijients., that they may have right to the tree of life, 
and may enter in through the gates into the city," we must read, far 
more in accoi dance with the analogy of Scripture, " Blessed are they 
that wash their robes^ that they may have the right to come to the tree 
of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city." 

* The two words which have been confounded are 7}ya-T;fj.evotS and T/yiaajuevoiSc 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 37 



CHAPTER V. 

MORE IMPORTANT CHANGES DUE TO A CHANGE OF TEXT. 

Probably the first great change which will strike the reader of the 
Revised Version is the entire omission of the doxology of the Lord's 
Prayer at Matt. 6:13. The reasons for this omission are conclusive. 
First, the clause is not found in any of the great Uncials, J»?, B, D, 
which contain the passage. Secondly, it is not noticed by the earliest 
Fathers in their expositions of the Lord's Prayer. True, Chrysostom 
and others recognize it in the fourth century, but this cannot outweigh 
the fact that it is wholly unnoticed by Origen in the third. The in- 
ternal evidence, too, is somewhat against it, as an interruption of the 
context. There is, indeed, one weighty argument in its favor. It is 
found in most of the ancient versions, such as the ^thiopic, the 
Armenian, the Gothic, and, above all, the Syriac. Versions, it is ob- 
vious, are far more valuable as witnesses to the existence of clauses 
than they can be in regard to individual words. And could we be 
sure that the doxology existed from the first in such an ancient version 
as the Peshito Syriac, its genuineness would perhaps no longer be dis- 
puted. But, as was formerly remarked, we cannot insist on the 
authority of the Syriac in support of the passage. This is felt all the 
more from the varying form which is presented by the doxology in 
the Curetonian version, which omits altogether the words " and the 
power." Besides, it does not exist in the Latin Vulgate, a very im- 
portant witness. Upon the whole, criticism must pronounce decid- 
edly against the clause as forming part of the original, text ; and it is, 
accordingly, not admitted into the Revised Version. 

Mark 16 : 9-20. The reader will be struck by the appearance 
which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. 
Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the 
rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed on the margin containing 
a brief explanation of this, but it may be well here to say something 
more respecting such an important section of the Evangelical history. 
The case, then, stands as follows. It cannot be denied that there is 
something peculiar about the paragraph. We find that it has no 
place in t<, B, the two oldest manuscripts in our/-possession. It is 
true that the writer of B has left a blank space at the end of St. 
Mark's Gospel, clearly indicating that he knew of something more 



38 COMPANION TO THE. REVISED VERSION 

that might be inserted, but the fact remains that he did not insert it. 
Again, as Tregelles has remarked, " Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other 
writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written 
by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies."* Moreover, it must, 
I think, be admitted that the style of the passage is not that of the 
Evangelist. Not only are there seventeen words in the compass of 
only twelve verses which are nowhere else made use of by St. Mark, 
but the general complexion of the paragraph is unlike that of the 
Gospel. This much may be urged against the genuineness. But, on 
the other hand, in support of it we are told to reflect how improbable 
it is that a writer of the Gospel history would abruptly end his narra- 
tive with the statement contained in verse 8. That may be admitted, 
and yet there may have been circumstances unknown to us that com- 
pelled the author to make such a sudden termination. How many 
works might be referred to, such as Macaulay's " History of Eng- 
land," which close abruptly, for the too-sufficient reason that death 
arrested the pen of the writer ! But again it is argued that Irenseus 
quotes the passage, without the slightest misgiving, in the second 
century. True, and that is most weighty proof of the authority as- 
signed to the passage even from the earliest times, but does by no 
means prove the authorship of St. Mark. Nor can the evidence of 
versions be deemed conclusive, for reasons which have been already 
stated. On the whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems 
to lead us to these conclusions : first, that the passage is not the 
immediate production of St. Mark ; and secondly, that it is, never- 
theless, possessed of full canonical authority. We cannot ascertain 
its author, but we are sure he must have been one who belonged to 
the circle of the Apostles. And, in accordance with this view of the 
paragraph, it is marked off from the words with which, for some un- 
known reason, the Gospel of St. Mark ended ; while, at the same 
time, it is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that 
Gospel in the Revised Version. 

John 7 : 53 — 8 : 11. This section of the Gospel narrative stands 
on much the same footing with that just considered. It is inclosed 
within brackets in the Revised Version, and is accompanied by an 
explanatory note on the margin. More, however, than that note is 
necessary to set forth the real authority belonging to the passage. 
It is not found in any one of the first-rate Uncials, nor in the Syriac 
and other ancient versions. There is no evidence that it was known 
to Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the early Fathers. It is obelized 

* Introduction, p. 435. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 39 

as doubtful by many of the manuscripts which contain it. The texts 
in which it has come down to us vary exceedingly among themselves. 
And, lastly, as against its being an integral portion of St. John's Gos- 
pel, it has no connection with the context, and its style is totally 
different from that of the Evangelist. On the other hand, it is found 
in the ancient Uncial D, though in a text which varies much from 
the received. It v.ras known to St. Jerome in the fourth century, 
who expressly testifies that it existed in his days *' in many manu- 
scripts both Greek and Latin." Augustine about the same date affirms 
that '* some of but weak faith, or rather enemies of the true faith," 
had expunged it from their copies of the New Testament, and adds 
that they did so with an ethical purpose, fearing lest the passage might 
seem to grant impunity to sin. It would appear from Eusebius that 
even Papias, who lived in the early part of the second century, was 
familiar with the story, though that of course does not prove that he 
knew it as existing in St. John's Gospel. Finally, the narrative itself 
breathes the very spirit of Christ and Christianity. Now, in these 
circumstances, what judgment can criticism pronounce regarding it ? 
The right conclusion probably is that it is no part of St. John's 
Gospel, and yet is a perfectly true narrative which has descended 
to us from the Apostolic age. Some critics think that its proper place 
would be at the end of Luke 21, where it is really placed in some of 
the best of the Cursive manuscripts. Such being the facts of the 
case as regards this famous paragraph, it has properly been inserted 
in the text, but marked off from the context and inclosed in brackets 
in the Revised Version. 

Coloss. 2:2. A very important departure has here been made, on 
textual grounds, from the Authorized Version. But, as the reader 
will observe from the note on the margin, this has not been done with 
much confidence. The fact is that, in the present conflicting state of 
the evidence, it is impossible to say, with any approach to certainty., 
what was here the original text. There are many varieties of reading. 
First, we find the very short form, " to the acknowledgment of the 
mystery of God," without any reference to Christ at all. Next, we 
have " to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, Christ," nothing 
being interposed between the words * ' God ' ' and ' ' Christ. ' ' Thirdly, 
there is the form, " to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, 
which is Christ." Fourthly, some good manuscripts read " to the ac- 
knowledgment of the mystery of God, the Father of Christ." And 
lastly, there is the reading of the mass of the Cursives represented in our 
Authorized Version, " to the acknowledgment of the-mystery of God, 
and of the Father, and of Christ." The three last readings are, by 



40 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

the general consent of critics, set aside, as manifest amplifications of 
the original text. We are, therefore, left to choose between the first 
and second forms. Such choice is by no means easy, and critics are 
greatly divided on the point. According to a principle often already 
alluded to, the shorter form should, other things being equal, obtain 
the preference. But in this case there is scarcely equality. The curt 
form " of God " is supported only by one late Uiicial, and some good 
Cursives. The longer form " of (jod, Christ," has the weighty 
authority of B, and of Hilary among the Fathers. The fourth form 
mentioned above is supported by {<<, A, C, and thus has perhaps more 
external evidence than any of the rest, but can scarcely be accepted 
on account of internal considerations. In these circumstances, we 
conclude with some confidence that the true text of the passage is that 
represented in the Revised Version. 

I Tim. 3 : i6. The English reader will probably be startled to find 
that the familiar text, " And without controversy great is the mystery 
of godliness • God was manifest in the flesh," has been exchanged in 
the Revised Version for the following : " And without controversy great 
is the mys',ery of godliness ; He who was manifested in the flesh. " A 
note on the margin states that ** the word God^ in place oiHe tvho^ rests 
on no sufficient ancient authority ;" and it may be well that, in a pas- 
sage of so great importance, the reader should be convinced that such is 
the case. What, then, let us inquire, is the amount of evidence which 
can be produced in support of the reading ** God'' ? This is soon 
stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. 
None of the very ancient versions support it. No Uncial witnesses to 
it, with the doubtful exception of A. The most diverse opinions 
have been expressed by critics as to the true text of this manuscript. 
To let the reader understand how this should be, it must be stated 
that the difference between two such similar forms as O C and O C 
decides whether the reading shall be "who" or "God." Now, it 
cannot be wondered at that in a manuscript not less than fourteen 
hundred years old, it is difficult to say whether the decisive lines exist 
or not. But this difficulty has been greatly increased by an unfortu- 
nate attempt to escape from it altogether. Some very orthodox but 
presumptuous hand has drawn a dark line in the middle of the 0» so 
as to render it certain that " God " is the reading of the manuscript. 
But the effort must now be made to overlook that modern touch en- 
tirely, and decide whether or not there is any trace of an original line 
in the heart of O- Hence the diversity of opinion among critics. 
Bishop EUicott declares for O C " indisputably, after minute per- 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 4I 

sonal inspection." * Dr. Scrivener, on the other hand, says, " I have 
always felt co nvinced with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. 
A read © G-" t ^'^^ truth probably is, that in the now worn con- 
dition of the leaf containing the passage, it is impossible for any one 
by personal inspection at the present day to determine the original 
reading of the manuscript. Much weight, however, is due to the 
opinion of those who had an opportunity of examining the Codex soon 
after it was brought to England, and when it must have been far 
easier to decide the question at issue. Now , these appear to be 
almost unanimous that the reading was Q O- ^^^ even granting 
that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favor of 
" God," far more evidence can be produced in support of ** who." 
^* and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful 
testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative 
" who," is a far more difficult reading than " God," and could hardly 
have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we 
conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand as it 
has been given in the Revised Version. 

I Pe^er 3:15. The importance of the departure here made from 
the Authorized Version may not at first be obvious to the reader, but 
will become so on a very little consideration. It amounts to nothing 
less than the identification of C/in'st with Jehozmh. For, as all admit, 
the Apostle here borrows his language from Isa. 8:13, where we read 
*' Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself." Since, therefore, the language 
made use of in the Old Testament with respect to J ehovah is here ap- 
plied by St. Peter to Christ, there could not be a clearer attestation to 
the deity of our Redeemer than that which is furnished by this pas- 
sage as read in the Revised Version. And the necessity of the change 
here made in the text admits of no question. For the reading of the 
Authorized Version there are only a few manuscripts and Fathers ; 
while for that of the Revised there are all the great Uncials, several of 
the Fathers, and all the best versions. This instance of clear gain by 
rectification of the text tends all the more to reconcile us to the ap- 
parent loss which now comes to be mentioned. 

I John 5 : 7, 8. The whole of these verses bearing upon what is 
known as " the heavenly witnesses," has been omitted in the Revised 
Version. This omission is one of the most indubitable results of 
textual criticism. The words left out can be proved to have no claim 
whatever to a place in the text of Scripture. None of the Uncial 
manuscripts contain them. None of the ancient versions represent 
them. None of the Fathers quote them, even when arguing on the 
* Comm. on i Tim., p. 51. f Introduction, p. 553. 



42 COMPAMION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

subject of the Trinity. There are, indeed, two passages in Cyprian 
which seem to indicate an acquaintance with verse 7, but even though 
that be granted, the fact goes for nothing against such powerful coun- 
ter-evidence. As was formerly noticed, Erasmus omitted the words 
in his first two editions. But, as they had long stood in the Vulgate, 
he was, of course, subjected to much odium for so doing. To disarm 
his malignant assailants, he promised that in future editions he would 
insert the words if they were found in a single Greek manuscript. 
One was discovered in Britain which did contain them, and therefore 
Erasmus admitted them into the text of his third edition. But it is 
now agreed by all scholars that the " British manuscript," on whose 
authority the words were inserted, was not more ancient than the 
fifteenth or sixteenth century. It once belonged to a Dr. Montfort, 
of Cambridge, and from him it has derived its name, being still pre- 
served under the title of the Codex Mojitfortianus in Trinity College, 
Dublin. Erasmus himself suspected that the disputed words contained 
in this manuscript had been translated into Greek from the Latin 
Vulgate, and this is now the fixed opinion of critics. The same thing 
must be said respecting the only other Greek manuscript known to 
contain the passage. It belongs to the fifteenth century, and is pre- 
served in the Vatican library. The text it offers varies considerably in 
the verses referred to from that of the manuscript already spoken of, 
but was also undoubtedly derived from the Latin. The same seems 
clearly to have been the case with the Complutensian edition of the 
New Testament. That contained in Greek the disputed words, and 
Stunica, its leading editor, severely censured Erasmus for omitting 
them. But when the great scholar asked him to state on what 
authority he had inserted the passage in the text, Stunica appealed 
only to the Vulgate. He maintained that the Latin represented the 
true original of Scripture, and that the Greek copies had been cor- 
rupted, a pretty conclusive proof that the words in question owed 
their place in his text not to their having been found in any Greek 
manuscripts, but simply to their having been translated into Greek 
from the Vulgate. 

No defender of the genuineness of i John 7, 8, will probably arise 
in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and 
will never be renewed. But the literary history to which it has given 
rise will not be forgotten. A small library might be formed of the 
books and pamphlets which have been written for or against the 
words. Among the authors of these works some very celebrated 
names appear. That of the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton has a place 
in the list. He wrote against the genuineness of the words, and thus 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 43 

did good service in the cause of truth. But by far the most memo- 
rable event in this lengthened and often bitter controversy was the 
publication of the letters of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis. 
These letters, by their acuteness and ability, whatever may be thought 
of their spirit, virtually settled the case against the genuineness of the 
passage. And although since then the voices of some zealous friends 
of Scripture — bishops, cardinals, and others — have been unwisely 
lifted up in defence of "the three heavenly witnesses," yet so de- 
cidedly have the minds of all scholars now been made up as to the 
spuriousness of the words, that they have been omitted in the Revised 
Version, without a line even on the margin to indicate that they had 
ever been admitted to a place in the sacred text. 



PART II. 

CHANGES ARISING FROM AN AMENDED TRANSLATION. 



CHAPTER I. 

CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE MEANING OF GREEK WORDS. 

There are not very many instances in which the Authorized Ver- 
sion has positively mistaken the import of the original. The transla- 
tors had before them the labors of many able predecessors, and upon 
the whole turned to good account the advantages which they thus 
enjoyed. Still, there are cases in which they have gone quite astray 
in the meaning assigned to the Greek, and to the chief cf these we 
now proceed to direct our attention. 

Matt. lo : 4 and Mark 3:18. In these passages we read in the 
Authorized Version of " Simon the Canaanite.'" This naturally sug- 
gests to an English reader the idea that one of the Apostles did not 
belong to the family of Abraham, but to the race of the Canaanites. 
Such a notion, however, rests upon an utter mistake. The epithet 
applied to Simon is taken from the Aramaic patois^ then commonly 
spoken in Palestine. It is replaced by the Greek word meaning 
" Zealot" at Luke 6 : 15 and Acts i : 13, just as the same Evangelist 
gives the Greek equivalent at Luke 8 : 54 for the Aram.aic words in 
Mark 5 : 41, The meaning, therefore, is that Simon had, before he 
became a follower of Christ, belonged to the Jewish faction of the 
Zealots. Accordingly, this explanation has been given on the margin 
of the Revised Version at Matt. 10 : 4, and Mark 3:18, while 
Cananaean has taken the place of the erroneous and misleading form 
" Canaanite/* in the text. 

Matt. 14 : 8. Here we read in the Authorized Version, " She, behig 
before tnstrtuted of her moiher," etc. But it is certanLthat this is a mis- 
take. The Greek verb made use of has never any reference to time, 
but can only mean ''urged on," or "impelled." As Archbishop 



46 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Trench has remarked, " We may conceive the unhappy girl, with all 
her vanity and levity, yet shrinking from the petition of blood which 
her mother would put into her lips, and needing to be urged on or 
pushed forward before she could be induced to make it ; and this is 
implied in the word." * Hence the rendering " put forward " in the 
Revised Version. 

Matt. 15 : 27. The Greek will not here allow of the rendering 
** yet," which occurs in the Authorized Version. And it completely 
perverts the meaning. The argument of the woman is derived from 
that very appellation which our Lord had given her. Granting its 
truthfulness, she saw it opened a door of hope before her, so that, in- 
stead of being driven by Christ's words to despair, she ventured to rest 
her whole case upon them, and exclaimed, as in the Revised Version, 
" Yea, Lord, for eve?i the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their 
master's table." 

Matt. 26 : 15. An interesting correction has been made in this verse. 
We cannot, indeed, affirm that the translation "covenanted," here 
found in the Authorized Version, is absolutely impossible. But it 
entirely breaks the connection between this passage and Zech. 11 : 12. 
We there find the very same Greek verb in the Septuagint as here 
occurs in the Gospel. The Old Testament rendering is, " They 
weighed iox my i^xxQ,^ thirty pieces of silver. " And so it should be 
here, as in the Revised Version, " They weighed unto him thirty 
pieces of silver." 

Mark ^ : 2(). Here the expression "is brought forth," in the 
Authorized Version, is a very inexact rendering of the Greek verb. 
The proper translation, "is ripe," will be found in the text of the 
Revised Version. 

Luke 3 : 23. Here we find in the Authorized Version the singular 
statement that " Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age." 
The Greek gives no countenance to such a translation. It ought to 
be rendered as in the Revised Version, " And Jesus himself, when he 
began (to teach), was about thirty years of age." 

Luke 9:32. This verse is quite misrepresented by the Authorized 
Version, " But Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with 
sleep ; and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two 
men that stood with him." It ought to be rendered as in the Revised 
Version, " But Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with 
sleep ; yet having remained awake, they saw his glory, and the two 
men that stood with him." 



* '« 



On Authorized Version," p. 115. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 47 

Luke 18 : 12. Here the word " possess" in the Authorized Version 
is quite an impossible rendering of the Greek. It ought to be 
" acquire" or " get," as in the Revised Version. Tithes were paid 
not on what was laid up ox possessed^ but on what was gained in the 
way of increase. Hence the Pharisee says, " I give tithes of all that 

I get." ; 

Luke 22 : 56. The exact and graphic force of the original is here 
missed in the Authorized Version. " But a certain maid beheld him 
as he sat by the fire : and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This 
man was also with him." The real meaning is, .that she recognized 
him when a flash of the smouldering fire fell upon his countenance. 
This is brought out in the Revised Version. " And a certain maid 
seeing him as he sat in the light (of the fire), and earnestly looking 
upon him, said, This man also was with him." 

Luke 24 : 25. Many readers must have been struck by the harsh- 
ness of the words, " O fools," here found in the Authorized Version. 
Such an opening of his discourse seems quite out of keeping with the 
tender and affectionate way in which Christ dealt with these two dis- 
ciples. No such incongruity appears in the original. It simply de- 
notes want of understanding and reflection, and the Authorized Version 
has been softened in the Revised by the simple emendation, " O fool- 
ish men."' ' 

John 9:17. Here the Authorized Version is scarcely intelligible. 
** They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that 
he hath opened thine eyes ?" The meaning is made plain in the Re- 
vised Version merely by inserting ** in," thus : " They say therefore 
unto the blind man again. What sayest thou of him, in that he opened 
thine eyes ? And he said, He is a prophet. " 

John 10 : 14, 15. The connection between these two verses is 
totally destroyed in the Authorized Version, which runs thus : ** I am 
the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. - As 
the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father ; and I lay down 
my life for the sheep." The verses should be read as in the Revised 
Version : " I am the good Shepherd, and I know mine own, and mine 
own know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the 
Father ; and I lay down my life for the sheep." 

John II : 20. The supplementary word " still " here inserted in 
the Authorized Version : " but Mary sat still in the house," is apt to 
produce an erroneous impression. By simply transposing it in the 
Revised Version, the true meaning of the tense employed in the orig- 
inal is brought out : " but Mary still sat in the house." 

Acts 2 : 3. The Authorized Version is here quite wrong : ** And 



48 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

there appeared unto them cloven tongues^ like as of fire, and it sat 
upon each of them." The symbolical meaning of the appearance is 
thus quite missed. We must render, as in the Revised Version, 
" And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder {ox ^ parting 
among thein^ like as of fire,) and it sat upon each of them." 

Acts 3 : 19, 20. An impossible translation here occurs in the 
Authorized Version, in which we read, " Repent ye therefore, and 
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of re- 
freshing shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and he shall send 
Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you." For escha- 
tological reasons it is most important that the true rendering of this 
passage should be presented. It is thus given in the Revised Ver- 
sion : *' Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be 
blotted out, that so seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of 
the Lord ; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed 
for you (even), Jesus." 

Acts 26 :_28. It is with some reluctance that v>e here abandon the 
rendering of the Authorized Version, ''Almost thou persuadest me 
to be a Christian." This is a text from which many eloquent and 
edifying sermons have been preached, but the Greek will not tolerate 
it. Quite a different expression must have been used for " almost ;" 
and the true rendering of the original, as it stands, seems to be that 
of the Revised Version : " With but little persuasion thou wouldest 
fain make me a Christian." 

liom. 3 : 25. The Authorized translation of this verse is, *' Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to 
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God." But, besides being almost unin- 
telligible, this is an utterly impossible version of the Greek. The 
original can only be fairly represented in some such translation as 
that of the Revised Version : " Whom God set forth to be a propitia- 
tion, through faith, by his blood, to shew his righteousness, because 
of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of 
God." 

Rom. 11:7, 25. It is remarkable that the Greek words which the 
Authorized Version translates in these verses, and at 2 Cor. 3 : 14, 
Eph. 4: 18, as " blinded " and " blindness," are in the Gospels 
(Mark 3:5; 6 : 52 ; John 12 : 40) rendered "hardened" and 
"hardness." The latter is their proper meaning, and, as such, it 
has been consistently mamtained in the Revised Version. 

I Cor. 4 : 4. This verse stands as follows in the Authorized Ver- 
sion, " For I know nothing by myself j yet am I not hereby justified ; 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 45 

but he that judgeth me is the Lord." As thus translated, the pas- 
sage is constantly misunderstood. Even intelligent readers imagine 
that the Apostle here means to state that he was dependent for all the 
knowledge he had on the favor of God. But this is a total misappre- 
hension of the meaning. The true sense is brought out in the 
Revised Version, " For I know nothing against myself ; yet am I not 
hereby justified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord." This passage 
might, perhaps, have been more justly classed with those archaisms 
which require adjustment to present-day usage than with mistakes in 
translation. Yet the misunderstanding of the words is so great that 
it seemed important to notice them here. Some have deemed the 
expression ' ' by myself ' ' a mere provincialism, which was, through 
oversight, admitted into the Authorized Version, but the phrase 
seems once to have been good English. Thus, " Cranmer says to 
Henry VIII., ' I am exceedingly sorry that such faults can be proved 
by the queen,' that is, against her."'" The Apostle means that 
though he was not conscious of having done any wrong in reference 
to the Corinthians, yet, after all, it was only God that could truly 
judge and thoroughly justify him. 

2 Cor. 2 : 14. Here the rendering, ** Now thanks be unto God, 
which always caitseth us to triumph in Christ, ' ' seems to rest on a mis- 
take as to the meaning of the Greek. Indeed, the Authorized Ver- 
sion contradicts itself, for the same word occurs again at Col. 2:15, 
and is there translated "triumphing over them.*' The correct ren- 
dering is that of the Revised Version, " But thanks be unto God, 
which always leadeth us iti triumph in Christ," on which Bishop Light- 
foot remarks, that here *' the image of the believer made captive and 
chained to the car of Christ is most expressive, while the paradox of 
the Apostle's thanksgiving over his own spiritual defeat and thraldom 
is at once significant and characteristic"! 

Gal. ^ : 17. The Authorized Version here reads, " For the flesh lust- 
eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; and these are 
contrary the one to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
would." By this rendering the ^esh is represented as the master- 
principle, which succeeds in preventing believers from doing the things 
which they would. But the very opposite is implied in the Greek. 
The spirit who dwells in believers is represented as enabling them 
successfully to resist those tendencies to evil which naturally exist 
within them ; and the correct rendering is that of the Revised Ver- 
sion, •' For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against 

* Eadie, " The English Bible," ii. 374. 

I " Revision of the New Testament," p. 135. 



50 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

the flesh ; for these are contrary the one to the other ; that ye may not 
do the things that ye would. ' ' 

Eph. 4 : 29. Here again the Authorized Version presents the fol- 
lowing impossible translation, " Let no corrupt communication pro- 
ceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying., 
that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Th.e literal meaning of 
the Greek is "to the building up of the need," and its real import is, 
that hearers are to be addressed, not in commonplace generalities, 
but in special terms, as their necessities require. This is expressed 
in the Revised Version, " let no corrupt speech proceed out of yoiir 
mouth, but that which is good for edifying as the need may he., that it 
may give grace to them that hear." 

Phidpp. 4 : 2, 3. The Authorized Version here reads, " I beseech 
Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the 
Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women 
which labored with me in the Gospel," etc. It would seem from this 
rendering that Euodias and Syntyche are referred to only in the 
second verse, and that the women afterward spoken of are different. 
But the original shows that this is not the case, and the proper trans- 
lation is that of the Revised Version, " I beseech Euodias, and I 
beseech Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yea, I intreat 
thee also, true yokefellow, help those women for they labored with me 
in the Gospel," etc. 

Col. 2:8. If it cannot be said that the Authorized Version here is 
positively erroneous, it is certainly liable to grave misconstruction. 
The true meaning is clearly brought out, when instead of " Beware 
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit," we read 
as in the Revised Version, " Take heed lest there shall be any one 
that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit." 

2 Thess. 2 : i. Here the Authorized Version errs, in common with 
many others, in the 'rendering, " Now we beseech you, brethren, l^y 
the coming oi our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. It should be, as in the 
Revised Version, " Now we beseech you, brethren, i7z regard of the 
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. 

I Tim 6:5. Here the i;;endering of the Authorized Version, 
" supposing that gain is godliness," is not only erroneous but absurd. 
How it could have ever found acceptance is very difficult to under- 
stand.' As the original clearly indicates, '' godliness" is the subject, 
and " gain" the predicate, so that the correct rendering is that of the 
Revised Version, " supposing that godliness is a^way of gain.'' 

Heb. II : 13. This verse is spoiled in the Authorized Version, 
which runs thus, ** These all died in faith, not having received the 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 5 1 

promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them 
and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pil- 
grims on the earth." It was formerly remarked that the clause " and 
were persuaded of them" has no right to stand in the text. We have 
now to notice that the translation, "and enibraced them," is incor- 
rect. The image, as Chrysostom long ago remarked, is that of sailors 
who, catching a glimpse of the shores they wish to reach, salute them 
from a distance. It will be remembered how the poet notices this in 
our own language, when, speaking of a promontory by the sea, he 

says 

" His hoary head 
Conspicuous many a league, the mariner. 
Bound homeward, and in hope already there. 
Greets with three cheers exultins.'*'* 



'to* 



Such is the attitude assigned in this passage to the Old Testament 
saints, and the verse ought to be translated as in the Revised Version, 
" These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having 
seen them, 2J\^ g7'eeted them from afar ^ and having confessed that they 
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." 

I Pet. 3:21. It is certain that the Authorized Version is here 
wrong in translating the original as meaning " the answer of a good 
conscience towards God." The exact meaning of the clause is diffi- 
cult to determine. It probably is the seeking after God with an earnest 
heart, as the great spiritual idea in Christian baptism implies. The 
Revised Version, with certainly a far nearer approach to truth than 
the Authorized, inserts somewhat doubtfully in the text, ** the inter- 
rogation of a good conscience toward God," while ** inquiry" and 
" appeal " stand on the margin. 

Rev. 4:6, 7, 8, 9 ; 5 : 6, 8, 11, 14 ; 6 : i, 3, 5, 6, 7 ; 7:11; 
14 • 3 ? 15 : 7 ; 19 : 4. Every one must have heard the word ** beast" 
or " beasts," which is the translation of the Authorized Version in 
these passages, quietly corrected into "living creature" or "crea- 
tures." The word in the original is totally different from that which is 
found in such passages as Rev. 13 : i ; 14 : 9, etc., where the 
rendering " beast" is quite proper. The terms will be found prop- 
erly discriminated in the Revised Version. 

* Cowper's " Task," book i. 



52 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



CHAPTER II. 

CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN GREEK GRAMMAR. 

Here a very wide field opens up before us. The" Authorized Ver- 
sion is often most inexact in regard to grammatical points. This 
comes out in many ways, and will be here illustrated with reference to 
the article, the tenses of the Greek verb, and the senses assigned to 
several prepositions. 

It need hardly be said how great is the difference of meaning im- 
parted to a clause or sentence in our language, according as one word 
in it is without an article, or has the indefinite or definite article. 
Thus, if we read, " God gave life to man^'' that is felt to hav^e a very 
distinct sense from " God gave life to a man," and the latter again to 
be very different in meaning from " God gave life to the man." 
Perhaps no better illustration could be adduced of the difference of 
signification caused in English by the use of the indefinite or definite 
articles respectively than is furnished in the remark said to have been 
made by Charles Fox, when, comparing his own fluency with that of 
William Pitt, he said, " I never want a word, but Pitt never wants//^*? 
word." These examples will sufficiently suggest to the reader how 
much may depend on the correct use of the article in our language. 

But in the Authorized Version this point of accuracy has been 
almost entirely neglected. The Greek language has a definite article, 
and its omission or insertion in a passage often has the weightiest 
effect upon the sense. Yet our translators seem to have been ignorant 
of this fact, and have treated the article as if it were net of the slightest 
importance. They have been guilty of every possible variety of error 
in connection with it. As will immediately appear, they have omit- 
ted it in their version where it existed in the original ; they have in- 
serted it where it had no plac'e in the Greek ; and they have some- 
times over-translated it by giving it the force of a demonstrative pro- 
noun,. Let us look at some instances of their blundering under each 
of these three heads. 

First, the Authorized Version has frequently omitted the article 
where it existed in the Greek. There are, no doubt, cases in which 
the English idiom will not tolerate the use of an article where it is 
found in the original. This is especially true when it stands before 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 53 

proper names and abstract nouns. But, with these exceptions, it is 
generally important that the definite article should be represented in 
English when it stands in the Greek. This comes out very strikingly 
in connection with the word Christ. That term is never used in the 
Gospels as a proper name, but always as an official title. Only once 
is it connected with the personal appellation Jesus, namely, at John 
17 :'3, in which passage the Saviour stations himself, as it were, in 
the future, when his claim to be regarded as Messiah shall have been 
demonstrated by the resurrection. After that event the term Christ 
might be used as synonymous with JesuSy but not before. Accord- 
ingly, we find that in the Gospels the word has, with very few excep- 
tions, the article prefixed, and should therefore be translated ''the 
Christ." Thus, at Matt. 2 : 4, where the Authorized Version has 
" he demanded of them where Christ should be born," the proper 
rendering is the Ch'ist^ the promised Messiah. And so throughout. 
Many other examples of the improper and hurtful omission of the 
article by the Authorized Version might be quoted. I shall notice 
only these two — 2 Thess. 2 : 3, where, instead of ** ^ falling away," 
and " that man of sin," we should read " except the falling away come 
first, and //^d" man of sin be revealed," and Heb. 11 : 10, where the 
right rendering is, " he looked for the city which hath the foundations" 
the reference being to the well-known and often-alluded-to foundations : 
in other words, he looked for the New Jerusalem, of which it had 
been already said, " Y\.tx foundations are in the holy moun,tains" (Ps. 
87 : 10 ; f. Isa. 28 : 16) ; even as in the Apocalypse great things are 
spoken of these glorious foundations of the heavenly city" (Rev. 21 : 
14, 19, 20).* Proper regard to the insertion of the definite article 
where it occurs in the Greek will be found one of the marked charac- 
teristics of the Revised Version. 

Secondly, the Authorized Version has inserted the definite article 
where it had no place in the Greek. This is not such a frequent error 
as that just noticed, but still not a few examples are to be found. 
Thus, at I Tim. 6 : 10, the Authorized Version makes St. Paul de- 
clare that " the love of money is the root of all evil," an exaggerated 
statement which could not be seriously maintained, whereas the true 
rendering is, " the love of money is a root of all evil," a sad truth 
which universal experience has confirmed. So again, at Luke 3 : 14, 
we should read, " and soldiers also asked him ;" at 2 Cor. 3 : 15, 
" a veil lieth upon their heart ;" at Gal. 4 : 31, ** children of a hand- 
maid ;" a*t Philipp. 3:5, "a Hebrew of Hebrews ;" and thus in 

* Abp. Trench, " On the Authorized Version," p. 86. 



54 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

several other passages which will be noticed by readers of the Revised 
Version. 

Thirdly, the Authorized Version has sometimes oz^er-tra/zslafed the 
article by giving it the force of a demonstrative pronoun. Examples 
of this error occur at John i : 21, where we find, " Art thou f/iat 
prophet ?" instead of " Art thou ///-f prophet ?" 4 : 57, " t/iai saying" 
for " f/ie saying ;" 6 : 32, " f/iaf bread " for " t/ie bread ;" at Acts 
19 : 9, " t/iat way" for " tAe way ;" 2 Cor. 3:17," f/iat Spirit" for 
" //le Spirit ;" 7 : 11, "in t/iis matter" for " in f/ir matter ;" Rev. 
I : 3, '* words of f/iis prophecy" for " words of if/ie prophecy ;" and 
so in some other passages which have been corrected in the Revised 
Version. 

Finally, in connection with this point there are several passages 
which serve to prove that the translators of the Authorized Version 
attached little or no importance to the occurrence of the article either 
in Greek or English. Thus, at James 5 : 20 they translated the 
Greek by '\a multitude of sins," while at i Peter 4 : 8 they render the 
very same words " //^^ multitude of sins." Thus, too, at Matt. 8 : 20 
we find the article which stands in the original given in English, 
" T/ie foxes have holes, and f/ie birds of the air have nests," whereas 
at Luke 9 : 58 the very same Greek is rendered without the article — 
" Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests." How detri- 
mental to the bringing out of the true meaning of Scripture in many 
passages was this unscholarly and inconsistent treatment of the article 
has already been sufficiently evinced. 

The next point of grammatical incorrectness which calls for notice 
in the Authorized Version respects the rendering of the tenses of the 
Greek verb. Here, as in regard to the article, the translators were, 
no doubt, misled by their greater familiarity with the Latin than the 
Greek language. The Latin has no article, definite or indefinite, nor 
does it possess the elaborate tense system of the Greek. In particu- 
lar, Latin has no means of distinguishing between momentary past 
action forever finished and continuous past action just completed, 
but which may still be carried on. The Latin perfect tense must 
serve both purposes, and hence it was natural that men who were 
accustomed to speak and write in that language, with its one tense 
denoting both varieties of past action, should fail to discriminate be- 
tween the two tenses employed to express the two kinds of past action 
in the sister tongue. 

We find, accordingly, that little attention is paid in the 'Authorized 
Version to the difference between the Greek aorist and the Greek per- 
fect. They are interchanged very much at random in the translation. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 55 

Thus, at Matt. 2 : 2 an aorist is translated as a perfect — " we have 
seen" for " we saw ;" while at Luke 13 : 2 a perfect is translated as 
an aorist — "they suffered" for "they have suffered." The clear 
principle which ought to be observed in regard to this matter is that 
the Greek tenses should always be rendered with strict grammatical 
precision in English, whenever the genius of our language will admit 
of it. But there are, undoubtedly, many occasions on which English 
idiom will not tolerate a strict rendering of the aorist. Instead of the 
bare and hard past tense, a perfect or even pluperfect rendering brings 
out the meaning better in our language. Thus at Matt. 19 : 20 an 
?orist occurs in the Greek, yet the Revised Version, no less than the 
Authorized, renders it by a perfect — " All these things have I observed.'* 
It is quite impossible to act upon the rule that the Greek aorist must 
always be rendered by the English past tense ; and, that being so, 
differences of opinion will necessarily arise with respect to particular 
passages. But, while this is admitted, there is at the same time no 
doubt that the strict grammatical meaning of the tense has often been 
departed from in the Authorized Version, not only without necessity, 
but even to the detriment of the sense. Thus, at Matt. 2 : 15, in- 
stead of " I have called," we ought to read " I called," the reference 
being to a historic fact in the distant past. So at Ads 19 : 2 the 
meaning is quite obscured by the rendering — " Have ye received the 
Holy Ghost since ye believed ?" It ought to be, " Did ye receive the 
Holy Ghost when ye believed?" Once more, at 2 Pet. r : 14, the 
striking reference by the Apostle to the scene described in John 
21 : 18, 19, is quite lost by the substitution of a perfect tense for the 
aorist of the original. The verse has only to be read as it stands in 
the Authorized and Revised Versions respectively to feel "that such is 
the case. In the one we find the following words : " Knowing that 
shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus 
Qirist Imth shewed me," as if the communication had just been made. 
In the other we read, *^ Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle 
Cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ shewed me' '—the mind 
being thus at once transported to the shore of the Lake of Galilee^ 
where Christ had so long ago forewarned his Apostle ** by what man- 
ner of death he shouW glorify God." These are only a few examples 
of the many grammatical corrections which have been made with re- 
spect to the aorist in the Revised Version. 

Again, as has been said, perfects are translated as if they had been 
aorists. T*his also sometimes greatly ,mars the ^gense, as at i Cor. 
15 : 4. In the first clause of that verse an aorist occurs, and in the 
second a perfect ; but both are translated as past tenses in the 



56 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Authorized Version, thus, " And that he was buried, and that he ruse 
again the third day according to the Scriptures." The beautiful 
discrimination indicated in the original between the fact of Christ's 
burial and that of his resurrection is thus lost. The former event was 
simply historical, and has passed away forever ; the latter is more 
than historical, for Christ still exists as a living Person who has j'isen 
again from the dead. The perfect, therefore, should have its proper 
meaning assigned to it, and the verse should stand thus : " And that 
he was buried, and that he Jiath been 7'aised on the third day according 
to the Scriptures." There are numerous other instances in which the 
use of the perfect in the Greek has a special beauty which is lost in 
our English version. Thus, the proper rendering at John 5 : 33 im- 
parts great additional vividness to the passage — " Ye have sent unto 
John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth." Of course, the per- 
fect may frequently be expressed by " is" as well as by " has ;"' we 
may say either " my time is not yet come," or, " my time has not 
yet come." Sometimes the one form is to be preferred in our lan- 
guage and sometimes the other ; but in one way or another, the per- 
fect, where it occurs in the Greek, may generally be expressed in Eng- 
lish. Thus we read at Matt. 25 : 6, "At midnight a cry /i-made," 
and not " was made ;" at John 8 : 33, " have never bee7i,'' and not 
*' were never," and so in other places which will be observed in read- 
ing the Revised Version. 

The imperfect tense often expresses delicate shades of meaning in 
the original which cannot always be represented in our language. But 
certainly much more may in this respect be accomplished than is at- 
tempted in the Authorized Version. Thus at Matt. 3 : 14, the word 
" forbad " is a very coarse rendering of an imperfect tense in the 
Greek. The meaning is that John labored for a time to avoid what 
he thought the unseemliness of baptizing his superior, and this has 
been expressed in the Revised Version by the words, " John woidd 
have hijidered him." Again, at Luke i : 59, there is a misstatement 
of fact owing to the neglect of the imperfect tense. It is stated that 
" they called him Zacharias," but this is not true, since they were pre- 
vented by the interposition of bis mother from doing so. The passage 
simply implies that they intended to name the child Zacharias, and this 
is expressed by the translation, " they would have called \nm.'' Once 
more, at Luke 5 : 6, we read in the Authorized Version that " their 
net brake ^'^ where the proper rendering is " was breaking'' — the pro- 
cess had begun. Sometimes the aorist and the imperfect stand in the 
same verse, and the force of the latter is then very obvious, yet has 
not unfrequently been missed. Thus at Luke 8 : 23 we read that 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 57 

" there came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filled 
with water, and were in jeopardy ;" but while the tense of the first 
verb denotes completed past action, that of the second implies that the 
threatened result was not yet accomplished, and the translation should 
be " they ivere filling with water." 

The manner in which the Greek tenses are rendered in the 
Authorized Version does indeed exhibit strange inconsistency and con- 
fusion. Present tenses are represented by /«i"/^, as at Heb. 9:6,*' the 
priests went,"' for " the priests ^^," at Rev. 7 : 14, " these are they 
which came^'' for ** these are they which come,'" and in other places ; 
and \>Y futures, as at Matt. 24 : 40 and 41, " the one shall be taken, 
and the other left," for " one is taken, and one is left ;" John 7 : 41? 
" Shall Christ. come out of Galilee ?" for " Doth the Christ come out 
of Galilee ?" and in several other passages. Future tenses are ren- 
dered as imperatives : thus, at Matt. 5 : 48, we find, " Be ye perfect," 
for " Ye shall be perfect," and at 1 Tim. 6 : 8, we read, much to the 
injury of the passage, " Having food and raiment let us be therewith 
content," for " we shall be therewith content." 

While the Authorized Version is thus so very inexact in its render- 
ing of the tenses, we cannot expect to find it free from error in various 
other particulars connected with the Greek verb. Some writers have, 
accordingly, noted that it occasionally mistranslates the middle or 
passive voice, by assigning it a meaning which belongs only to the 
active. Thus, at Philipp. 2 : 15, we find " among whom ye shine,'" 
where the correct rendering is, *' among whom ye are seen." Again 
at 2 Cor. 5:10, the force of the passive is not brought out. The orig- 
inal implies far more than that " we must all appear before the judg- 
ment seat of Christ," its real force is that " we must all be made mani- 
fest." When the ear has once become disenchanted of the charm 
which is felt to reside in the familiar words of the Authorized Version, 
it will be acknowledged that in the changes which regard for grammat- 
ical accuracy in rendering the Greek verb has demanded, much gain is 
to be derived from the more scholarly representation of the original 
presented in the Revised Version. 

We have now to look at some of those instances of mistranslation 
which occur in the Authorized Version with respect to the Greek prep- 
ositions. These errors are not so numerous as some writers have rep- 
resented. It would be an utter mistake to demand from the writers 
of that Hebraized Greek in which the New Testapient is composed 
the same grammatical precision that is found in the classical authors. 
There should be taken into account, when dealing especially with their 



58 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

use of the Greek prepositions, the fact that they were influenced by the 
analogous Hebrew words in the way in which they employed them. 
We cannot, therefore, rigidly apply to their writings those canons of 
interpretation derived from a study of the classics. Much allowance 
must be made for the effect of Hebrew idiom ; but, after that has been 
done, it is certain that the sacred writers did not use the prepositions 
with that laxity which might be inferred from the renderings given to 
them in the Authorized Version. 

We cannot, for example, imagine that they confounded the two very 
distinct meanings which a much-used preposition * had, according as 
it governed the genitive or accusative. Yet this is frequently done in 
our English version. The genitive rendering " by means of " is sub- 
stituted for the accusative rendering " by reason of," or the prep- 
osition is, in some other way, deflected from its proper import. 
Thus, at John 6:57, we find the erroneous rendering " by" twice in 
one verse, *' As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father ; 
so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." The great theologi- 
cal truth is thus obscured that the Father is the fountain of life, while 
the Son again is the source of all life to created beings, and specially 
of the highest life to His people ; and the verse should be rendered as 
follows : "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the 
Father ; so he that eateth me shall live because of me. " At Heb. 6 : 7 
we read " bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it. is dressed," 
instead of the only correct rendering, '' foi- whose sake it is dressed." 
Numerous other examples of the way in which the two perfectly dis- 
tinct meanings of the preposition, according to the case by which it is 
followed, are confounded, might be produced, but that is not the only 
error which our translators have committed in respect to it. They 
have rendered it " at" in Matt. 7 : 13, where the usual "by" would 
have been more correct ; " for" at i Cor. 7 : 26, where " by reason 
of " is the clearer translation ; " for" again at Rom. 15 : 30, where, 
with a different case, "by" is the only proper equivalent ; and even 
"to" instead of " by" at 2 Pet. i : 3, where they must have been in 
despair as to the meaning before they adopted such an impossible 
translation. They clearly show that they had no principles to guide 
them in the rendering they gave of this preposition, sometimes placing 
the wrong translation in the text and the right one in the margin, or. 
vice vei'sd^ and being apparently induced to choose one English term 
rather than another, simply by what seemed to them best to suit the 
context. 

Not to dwell at any length on mistranslations of other prepositions3 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 59 

the following erroneous renderings may simply be noted as specimens. 
At Luke 23 : 42 we have the very serious mistake of ** Lord, remem- 
ber me when thou comest into thy kingdom," for " Lord, remember 
me when thou comest in thy kingdom" — in the full possession of Thy 
mediatorial sovereignty. At Matt. 28 : 19, instead of " baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,'* 
the true rendering is "baptizing them ////(^ the name," just as at i 
Cor. 10 : 2 we read " baptized into Moses," and as should be read at 
Acts 8 : 16, " into the name of the Lord Jesus," and at i Cor. i .-13, 
*' into the name of Paul." At Matt. 24 : 30 the translation should be 
** on the clouds," and not ** in the clouds ;" and so in other passages 
where the same preposition is used. In the important doctrinal pas- 
sage, I Cor. 8 : 6, instead of " in him," we should read " unto him ;" 
and the verse runs thus in the Revised Version : " To us there is one 
God, the Father, of v.'hom are all things, and we unto him ; and one 
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 
It deserves also to be noticed that prepositions are sometimes mis- 
translated when in composition with verbs. Thus, to give only one 
striking example, we read in the Authorized Version, at Heb 4 : 14, 
" Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." But 
this is an impossible translation of the preposition here used with the 
verb, and the only correct rendering is, " Having then a great high 
priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, 
let us hold fast our confession." This expression, "hath passed 
through the heavens," may at first appear strange to us, but it will 
gain in significance the more it is pondered, denoting, as it probably 
does, that " as the earthly high priest passed through the veil into the 
holiest place, so the great High Priest through the heavens to God's 
throne."* 

Many other examples of less or more inaccuracy might be noticed as 
existing in our common English translation, but the above must suffice 
as illustrations ; and the rest will suggest themselves to every careful 
reader of the Revised Version. 

* Alford on Heb. 4 : 14. 



60 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



CHAPTER III. 

CORRECTION OF ARCHAISMS, AMBIGUITIES, AND THE RENDERING OF 
PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL EXPRESSIONS. 

No attempt has been made to modernize the style of the Authorized 
Version. On the contrary, ** innocent archaisms" — to use an expres- 
sion which was frequently on the lips of the Company — have invariably 
been allowed to stand. It was felt that these tend to give a dignity 
and solemnity to a translation of the Scriptures, and that to change 
them into the language of present every-day life would have been to 
insure loss instead of gain. As has been well remarked, " These 
(archaisms), shedding round the sacred volume the reverence of age, 
removing it from the ignoble associations which will often cleave to 
the language of the day, should on no account be touched, but rather 
thankfully accepted and carefully preserved. For, indeed, ■ it is good 
that the phraseology of Scripture should not be exactly that of our 
common life : should be removed from the vulgarities, and even the 
familiarities, of this ; just as there is a sense of fitness which dictates 
that the architecture of a church should be different from that of a 
house."* 

In g.ccordance with these sentiments, the same antique air which 
belongs to the Authorized Version will be found also to distinguish the 
Revised Translation. Every archaism that still continues generally 
intelligible has been left untouched. Hence, such forms as hath, 
whiles, throughly, holpen, etc., have been retained, and the relative 
*' which" has been allowed to stand, as in old English, when the ante- 
cedent is. a person. 

But it is manifest that an archaism ceases to be m7iocent when it has 
become altogether obsolete, or has wholly or to a considerable degree 
changed its meaning. And riot a few such words or phrases are to be 
found in the Authorized Version. They are now either quite un- 
intelligible or seriously misleading ; and to substitute other expressions 
for them was clearly one of the plainest duties to be kept in view in 
preparing the Revised Version. 

The following words may be given as examples of those that have, 

* Abp, Trench, " On the Authorized Version," p. 22. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 6 1 

of necessity, been replaced by others. *' Let" now means io permit^ 
but is used with exactly the opposite meaning of hinder at Rom. 
I : 13 ; 2 Thess. 2:7. " Worship" is now used only with reference 
to the service of God, but occurs in the sense of respect shown to vian 
at Luke 14 : 10 ; while " room," now meaning apartment^ is used in 
the same verse to denote d. seat. "Wealth" reads strangely indeed 
at I Cor. 10 : 24, " Let no man seek his own, but every man another's 
wealth^''' where the word means welfare. " Prevent" now means to 
hinder^ but at Matt. 17 : 25 and i Thess. 4 : 15 it is used in the sense 
of a7iticipate ox precede. "Quick" is used ioi living^ as at Heb. 
4 : 12, and is barely intelligible to the ordinary reader of that passage. 
" Ensue" is quite obsolete in the sense of pursue, which it has at 
I Peter 3:11- The word " conversation," as used in the Authorized 
Version, 'is a most fruitful cause of mistake. It always means conduct, 
except at Philipp. 3 : 20, where it is translated " citizenship" in the 
Revised Version, and might perhaps mean " city" or " home." The 
dreadful word " damnation," which stands at i Cor. ii : 29, has had 
the very worst consequences in many cases, and means no more than 
judgment. " Honest," at Philipp. 4 : 8, is a Latinism, meaning honor- 
able ; and the same is true of Rom. 12 : 17, though the Greek is there 
different. " Affect," at Gal. 4 : 17, is used for coiirt, and " allow," 
at Luke 11 : 48, means approve — senses of the words which would 
never occur to a modern English reader. The words " offend " and 
" offence" are very misleading, but it is not easy to substitute for them 
others that shall be in every respect preferable. The Revised Version 
has adopted r«?/^<? /<5> stuinble and stumbling-block for "offend" and 
" offence" in some passages, as Matt. 5 : 29, 16 : 23, but ift others 
has not been able to get rid of the obnoxious words. " Virtue," at 
Mark 5 : 30 and Luke 6:19, 7 : 46, simply means pouter. In the 
word " usury," at Matt. 25 : 27, there is no objectionable meaning, 
and it has been replaced by interest, as our language now requires. 
" Nephews," at i Tim. 5 : 4, really means grandchildren ; and when 
Moses is called " a proper child," at Heb. 11 : 23, the meaning is what 
we now express by such a word as goodly. The singular expression 
" occupy," found at Luke 19 : 13, means traffic, and " by and by," 
which occurs at Matt. 13 : 21 and several other passages in the Gos- 
pels, vcit^ns ij?imediately. "Writing-table," at Luke 1:63, denotes 
writi7tg tablet, while " devotions," at Acts 17 : 23, means " objects of 
worship." To mention only one other example of the- many mislead- 
ing archaisms which exist in the Authorized Version, the word " de- 
bate" is used at Rom. i : 29 in the sense of stj^ife j and so liable is 
this to be misunderstood that we are told " a worthy member of a 



62 COMrANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Scottish Church court once Warned its members not to caW their de- 
liberations a ' debate,' for debate was one of the rank sins condemned 
by the inspired apostle !" * 

As specimens of archaic phrases or modes of expression which are 
very apt at the present day to be mistaken, the following will suffice. 
At Matt. 6 : 34 the injunction, " Take no thought for the morrow," 
occurs, and has proved very hurtful in modern times. It was a faith- 
ful enough representation of the original two and a half centuries ago, 
for " thought" was then used in the sense of anxiety. But the word 
has now no such meaning, and the consequence is that the precept of 
our Lord as it stands has perplexed many a humble believer, while it 
has been used by unbelievers as a charge against Christ's teaching, 
which, they affirm, encourages improvidence. But the Greek really 
means, " Be not anxious for the morrow," and is so rendered in the 
Revised Version. Again, to take an instance of a different kind, 
what a ludicrous notion are these words at Acts 21 : 15 fitted to sug- 
gest : ** And after those days we took up our carriages^ and vvent up to 
Jerusalem." Persons of education will doubtless run little risk of mis- 
taking the meaning of the passage. But it should ever be remembered 
that the Bible is, above all other volumes, the people' s book., and that, 
if possible, not a single expression should be left in any translation of 
it which is at all likely to stumble or perplex the plainest reader. In. 
the case before us, a very slight change, " we took up qmx baggage^'' 
makes the, meaning clear. Some strange stories have been told in 
connection with the words " we fetched a compass," which occur at 
Acts 28 : 13, and whether these be true or not, much is gained by the 
renderirtg, *' we made a circuit," adopted in the Revised Version. 

Some ambiguities which occur in the Authorized Version also deserve 
•to be noticed. One of the most puzzling of these, if regard be had 
only to ihe apparently grammatical import of the words, occurs at 
2 Cor. 5 : 21, " He hath made him to be sin for us, ivho knew no sin^'' 
where it might seem that the sinlessness of mankind was proclaimed. 
This possible misconception is very simply but effectually obviated in 
the Revised Version, by rendering, in exact accordance with the order 
of the Greek, " Him who kn^w no sin he made to be sin on our 
behalf." At Luke 4 : 20 the statement " He closed the book, and he 
gave it again to the minister ' might suggest the idea of a president or 
preacher in the synagogue, instead of the attefidant or officer who had 
charge of the sacred books. At Eph. 6 : 12 the rendering, " spiritual 
wickedness in high places," is clearly ambiguous, as it might seem to re- 
fer (and has, indeed, been so taken) to the wickedness of persons high in 

* Eadie's " English Bible," ii. 374. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 63 

rank or au-thority, whereas the true meaning is '* in the heavenly places," 
as in other passages of the Epistle. There is an obvious misplacement 
of the word " also" at Heb. 12 : i, to the obscuring of the sense : 
" Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud 
of witnesses let us lay aside," etc., as if the believers named in the 
previous chapter were, like us, "compassed about," while they, in 
fact, are themselves " the cloud of witnesses ;" and the verse should 
run, *' Let us also," etc. Finally, James 2:1, " My brethren, have 
not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," is rendered clearer by trans- 
lating " hold not,'" etc. ; and so at chap. 3:1, " My brethren, be not 
many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemna- 
tion," has, with advantage, been exchanged for, "Be not many 
teacJiers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive a greater judg- 
ment," in the Revised A'^ersion. 

We now proceed to consider the rendering oi p7'opcr navies. 

The common-sense principle to be observed in regard to these is 
that one form should be preserved throughout Scripture for the same 
person, so that there may be no doubt as to identity. But, as need 
hardly be said, this rule is grossly violated in the Authorized Version. 
We find such varieties as Noah and Noe, Korah and Core, Hosea 
and Osee, Sinai and Sina, Midian and Madian, Miletus and Miletum, 
etc., made use of in referring to the same persons or places. This is 
most confusing to the reader, and may sometimes entail serious dis- 
advantage. " Let us just seek," it has been well said, " to realize to 
ourselves the difference in the amount of awakened attention among a 
country congregation which Matt, 17 : 10 would create if it were read 
thus : ' And his disciples asked him, saying. Why then say the scribes 
that Elijah must first come ? ' as compared with what it now is likely 
to create." * The procedure of our translators in regard to this mat- 
ter of proper names is truly incomprehensible. Not only do they vary 
the forms in the Old and New Testament, but they do so in the New 
Testament itself, even in the same books, yea, in the same chapters. 
Thus we find "Mark" at Acts 12 : 12, 25 and 2 Tim. 4 : 11, but 
" Marcus" at Col. 4 : 10, Philem. ver. 24, i Peter 5 : 13 ; " Cretes" 
at Acts 2:11, but " Cretians" at Tit. i : 12 ; " Simon, sonof Jona, " 
at John I : 42, but " Simon, son of Jnnas," at Jo'hn 21 : 15, 16, 17 ; 
" Luke" at Col. 4 : 14, 2 Tim. 4:11, but " Lucas" at Philem. ver. 
24 ; " Jeremy" at Matt. 2 : 17, but " Jeremias" at Matt. 16 : 14, and 
" Jeremy" again at Matt. 27 : 9 ; " Timotheus" at Acts 16 : i, but 
" Timothy" at Heb. 13 : 21, and, most strange of_ all, " Timothy" 
at 2 Cor. I : i, but " Timotheus," at ver. 19 of the^me chapter. It 

* Trench, " On the Authorized Version/' p. 41. 



64 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

is no slight gain that these and similar inconsistencies have been 
corrected in the Revised Version. 

But there is another name which here calls for special notice — even 
the " name that is above every name." The Greek form of Joshua 
is Jesus, and for that very insufficient reason Jesus stands in two pas- 
sages of the Authorized Version where Joshua^ the leader of Israel, is 
intended. These are Acts 7 : 45 and Heb. 4 : 8, and in both passages 
the introduction of the name of Jesus must have proved very puzzling 
to plain English readers. When they find it stated that " if Jesus had 
given them rest, then would he (David) not afterward have spoken of 
another day," their minds are certain to form some confused notion of 
the Saviour, who is the author of rest to His people. And thus is a 
passage of Scripture obscured and perverted by the use of the name 
Jesus, instead of Joshua, to designate the illustrious captain of the 
children of Israel. 

The extraordinary inconsistency of the Authorized Version in re- 
gard to proper names admits of still further illustration. At Acts 
17 : 19 we find the term " Areopagus," but only three verses after the 
same spot is referred to as " Mars' hill ;" the form " Judea" occurs 
at Matt. 2 : i, and most other places, but for some inconceivable reason 
the name appears as " Jewry" at Luke 23 : 5 and John 7:1; so, 
again, " Judas" is the usual form in the New Testament for the 
** Judah" of the Old, but the name appears as " Juda" at Mark 
6 : 3, etc., and as " Jude" in the first verse of the Epistle written bj 
that Apostle. It is hardly possible to say a word in defence of such 
capricious variations, and, as a matter of course, they are not to b? 
found in the Revised Version. 

With regard to all such names, the really important points are thai 
the form which has through circumstances become most familiar shoulcS 
be adopted, and that then this form should be adhered to with strict, 
unvarying consistency. 

On now turning to the consideration of technical expressions, we 
find much to object to in the Authorized Version. Several, indeed, 
of the renderings it has given pf them involve more or less of positive 
error. Thus is it with the term " deputy," which occurs at Acts 
13 : 7, 8,12, and 19 : 38 ; it should always be translated " proconsul." 
Again, the rendering " certain of the chief of Asia," at Acts 19 : 3^, 
suggests quite a false impression. It is an official title, and should 
have either been transferred from the Greek, like " tetrarch," so as 
to read " Asiarchs," or translated "presidents," as in the Revised 
Version. At Mark 6 : 27 the word rendered " executioner" really 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 65 

signifies " a soldier of the guard ;" and at Rom. 16 : 23 ** treasurer 
of the city" is a preferable rendering to " chamberlain." 

It is very difficult to decide what course should be followed in trans- 
lating the names of coins, weights, and measures. As need hardly be 
said, there are, as regards these, no words in our language exactly cor- 
responding to the original ; and it would never do to present them in 
a strictly equivalent version, so as to read " a measure of wheat for 
eightpence-halfpenny, " or " six pounds five shillings would not pur- 
chase bread sufficient." On the other hand, every one feels that the 
" penny" and " pence" which occur so often in the Authorized Ver- 
sion are awkward and misleading. Still, nothing better could be 
found. The word in the original, " denarion," might indeed have 
been transferred from the Greek into English, and so with all the 
other terms in question. But this would have been felt almost intoler- 
able, and such words could have conveyed no meaning to the English 
reader. For the most part, therefore, they have been left unaltered 
in the Revised Version. But in some passages greater definiteness 
has been given to the translation. Thus at Matt. 17 : 24, instead of 
the general word " tribute," there is read, '* Doth not your master 
pay the half -shekel ?'' And at ver. 27 of the same chapter, for the un- 
meaning " piece of money," we read " the shekel^'' which, being ex- 
actly double the amount mentioned before, throws light on the imme- 
diately following words of our Lord to St. Peter, " that take, and give 
unto them for me and thee. ' ' 

It may here simply be noted that the expression " Easter," which 
occurs once in the Authorized Version, is quite indefensible. Our 
translators struck it out from many other places in which it stood in 
the earlier English versions, and it was probably retained at Acts 
12 : 4 by mere oversight. The word ought to be rendered there, as 
everywhere else, " passover." 

There is one word not occurring at all in the Authorized Version 
that has simply been transplanted from Greek into English in the Re- 
vised Translation. This is the term " Hades," denoting the invisible 
world. Immense gain has been secured in several passages by the 
adoption of this word. Thus is it very markedly at Acts 2 : 27, where 
these words are quoted from Ps. 16 in reference to Christ : " Thou 
wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One 
to see corruption." The common rendering "hell" is here wholly 
unsuitable. That word has in the Revised Version been reserved 
for a totally different term {Gehenna) in the original^ 

Before concluding this chapter, I may notice the correction of an 
error in the Authorized Version which seems to have been due at first 



(^ COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

simpl}* to a misprint. It occurs at Matt. 23 : 24 : " Ye blind guides, 
whicli strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The correct rendering 
is " strain ^///, " and so, doubtless, the translators intended their text 
to be, but in some way or other, at instead of out found a place in the 
verse. We are told by scholars who have carefully examined the first 
edition of the Authorized Version, issued in i6ij, that it is by no 
means correctly printed. The errors which it contained have been 
gradually removed in subsequent editions, so that the text is now very 
accurate ; but strangely enough, while other mistakes have been per- 
ceived and corrected, this " strain at *' for " strain out " has main- 
tained its place down to the present day. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 67 



CHAPTER IV. 

CORRECTION OF THE UNNECESSARY CONFOUNDING OF ONE GREEK 
WORD WITH ANOTHER IN TRANSLATION. 

Here it must at once be admitted that not a few distinctions which 
are well marked in the original cannot be exhibited in English. Stiive 
as we may to the contrary, we are compelled to use the same word for 
different Greek expressions. This results from the comparative pov- 
erty of our tongue. It has been justly said that Greek can- draw a 
clear line where other languages can only make a blot ; and we must, 
therefore, as a matter of necessity, abandon in translation many of 
those fine distinctions which exist in the original. 

It is, for instance, impossible to present in English the delicate 
shades of difference in meaning which appear in the Greek between the 
two* verbs both rendered " love" at John 21 : 15-17. Yet the beauty 
of the passage is much impaired by the necessity which is felt in our 
language of translating the two words by one and the same in English. 
The word first employed by Christ is a very common one in the New 
Testament, and specially denotes a pure, spiritual affection. It is 
used of God's love to man, as at John 3 : 16 — " God so loved'' the 
world/' etc. — and of man's love to God, as at Matt. 22 : 37 — '* Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God, ' ' etc. The other word more particularly 
implies that warmth of feeling which exists between friends. Thus, 
it is used respecting Lazarus at John 11:3: "Behold, he whom 
thou lovest is sick ;" and again, at John 20 : 2, of St. John himself, 
when he is spoken of as " the disciple whom Jesus loved.'' Now, the 
use of the one word at first by Christ serves to remind St. Peter of 
the claim which his Divine Master had upon his deep, reverential 
love. But the Apostle, now profoundly sensible of his own weakness, 
does not venture to promise this, yet, feeling his whole heart flowing 
out to Christ, he makes use of the other word, and assures the Saviour 
at least of a fervent personal affection. Christ then repeats His ques- 
tion, still using the same verb, and Peter replies as before. But on 
asking the question for the third time, Christ graciously adopts the 
term employed by the Apostle : He speaks to hini again as a friend ; 
He clasps the now happy disciple afresh to His o'wn loving heart, 

* ayaTrdu and (puJu. 



68 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Now, all this we must, of necessity, lose through the meagreness of 
our language. In like manner, we miss the delicacy of the Greek in 
regard to the use of the same two verbs at John 11:3 and 5. And so 
is it in many other cases. When we observe that there are no fewer 
than seven Greek words which it has been found possible to translate 
as " child " in the Authorized Version, no fewer {han ten which have 
been rendered " appoint," no fewer than fourteen which stand for 
" give," and no fewer than /2£'(?;2/v-<?;2^ which correspond to " depart," 
enough has been said to suggest how frequently subtle distinctions 
which exist in the original must be lost in every English translation. 

But this should only render the desire more earnest that w^here differ- 
ences indicated in the Greek can be preserved in our language the 
opportunity should not be neglected. In many instances, indeed, 
there may not be much, if any, practical advantage resulting from such 
care in translation. Yet even then it is interesting and proper that 
distinctions observed in the original should, as far as possible, appear 
in the version. And, as will immediately be shown, it is sometimes 
most important, for the right understanding of passages, that distinc- 
tions should be clearly brought out which have been obliterated in the 
Authorized Version. 

Let us look, for instance, at the two words* both rendered ** fold " 
in John 10 : 16, and observe how the force of the passage comes out 
when they are distinguished, as they should be, in translation. The 
common Version runs thus : " And other sheep I have, which are not 
of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; 
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." But the Revised 
Version renders the last clause thus : "And they shall become one 
flock^ one shepherd." The Jewish Church constituted a special /-s*/^, 
with its strict inclosure, but our Lord's words tell of the time when 
this exclusiveness should be done away, and when, instead of the nar- 
rowness of a fold, there should be the wide-spreading freedom of a 
flock^ with one shepherd caring for them all. 

An interesting distinction of gender which exists at John i : 11 
should not have been suppressed under the rendering "his own," 
adopted in both clauses of tl\e verse. In the first clause the 7ieuter 
plural is found, and in the second iht masculi?ie,\ a difference which 
has been indicated by this rendering in the Revised Version: "He 
came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not." 

Two different words J are, in common, translated " temple" in the 
Authorized Version, and in most passages their confusion is not of 
much consequence. But there is a clear difference of meaning between 

* avkri and tzoi/xvt]. f tu I6ia and ol ISioc. \ to ispov and o vaoS. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 69 

them, and it is sometimes important that this should be brought out. 
The one is more general, embracing house and courts— the whole, in- 
deed, of the sacred inclosure — and is consequently used in such pas- 
sages as John 10 : 23, " Jesus walked in the temple^'" and Acts 5 : 20, 
*'Go, stand and J^^«/^ in the temple to the people." The other is 
more restricted, denoting the temple proper, the building or sanctuary, 
once called, at Luke 11:51, "the house." Now, unless these two 
meanings of the word " temple" be borne in mind, such a statement 
as that which occurs at Matt. 23 : 35 will not be understood. Our 
Lord there speaks to His hearers of " the blood of Zacharias, whom 
ye slew between the temple and the altar.'' In the wide sense of the 
word, the altar was within the temple, standing, as it did, in the court 
of the priests. But it is the more restricted term which is here used ; 
and the reader will have no difficulty in understanding the passage 
when he reads it, as in the Revised Version, '* whom ye slew between 
the sanctuary and the altar. 

At I Cor. 14 : 20 the force of the Apostle's exhortation is weakened 
by two different words* being both rendered " children." The 
second expression is better rendered " babes ;" and thus we learn how 
far St. Paul would have Christians go in their abnegation of all wicked- 
ness. " Be not children in mind," he says : " howbeit in malice be 
)^e babes^'' guileless and innocuous as infants. 

There are three words rendered " son" in the Authorized Version, 
but there is a cluster of passages on which it is important that one \ of 
these should rather be translated "servant." This is the meaning 
sometimes properly assigned it, as at Matt. 8 : 6, Luke 15 : 26 ; but 
in the passages referred to — Acts 3 : 13, 26 ; 4 : 27, 30— it is trans- 
lated " son," or " child." But it is not to the sonship of Christ that 
these passages point. It is rather to the obedience which, as the ser- 
vant of the Father, He rendered upon earth, and by bringing this out 
an important connection is established between the Old and New 
Testaments. As Archbishop Trench has remarked, " Every student 
of prophecy must have noticed how much there is in Isaiah prophesy- 
ing of Christ under the aspect of * the servant of the Lord,' * Israel 
my servant,* * my servant whom I uphold ' (Isa. 42 : 1-7 ; 49 : 1-12 ; 
52 : 13 ; 53 : 12). But it is quite certain from the inner harmonies 
of the Old Testament and the New that wherever there is a large 
group of prophecies in the Old there is some allusion to them in the 
New. "J The Authorized Version does to some extent indicate the 
connection between fulfilment and prophecy in this nmtter by translat- 

* [i7) iraidia yivsade and vrjircdCere. -j- irali, 

if " On the Authorized Vf^-rsion," p. 68. 



70 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

ing the word " servant" at Matt. 12 : 18, where Isa. 42 : i is quot- 
ed ; but the same rendering should have been adopted in the Acts, 
and this has been done in the Revised Version. 

There are two words, both translated " repent"* in the Authorized 
Version, which it is most desirable to distinguish wherever that is pos- 
sible. The one word means simply to ** rue" or .** regret," a course 
which has been followed ; the other implies that thorough change of 
mind which is implied in Christian repentance. Accordingly, the first 
term is applied, at Matt. 27 : 3, to Judas, and denotes remorse rather 
tlian repentance ; while the second is constantly used in such passages 
as Luke 15 : 10 : " There is joy in the presence of the angels of God 
over one sinner that repenteth. ' ' Unfortunately, it is not always possi- 
ble to express the distinction in our language, but this has been done 
at 2 Cor. 7 : 8, 10, in the Revised Version, where " regret" has been 
introduced instead of ** repent," and the distinction has been made 
clear between the sorrow which is felt for having simply made a mis- 
take and that which is experienced from a sense of unworthiness and 
guilt. In accordance with the difference of meaning thus indicated, 
it has been remarked that the second verb is frequently used in the 
imperative, the first never. 

While the substantive for " unbelief " and the verb for" to believe 
not" are always correctly rendered in the Authorized Version, there 
are two other related words f sometimes confounded with- these that 
should invariably be translated " disobedience" and " to obey not." 
This is the rendering given at Eph. 2:2;! Peter 2 : 8, and other pas- 
sages ; but at Heb. 4:6; Rom. 11 : 30, etc., we find them translated 
"unbelief" and "believe not." This inconsistency has been cor- 
rected throughout the Revised Version ; and the point is of some im- 
portance, since uftbelief and disobedience are not identical, but the one 
is the source of the other. 

In one passage, John 13 : 10, the rendering of two different verbs| 
by the same English word has led to an almost complete obscuration 
of the sense. Let any one read the Authorized Version, " He that is 
washed needeth not save to wash his feet, ' ' and scarcely any point will 
be seen in the words. But let him turn to the Revised Version, and 
read, " He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet," and 
the force of our Lord's statement will at once be apprehended. He 
will see that as, literally, the man who has been bathed needs only to 
wash his feet from the defilement which has been contracted since 
leaving the bath, so, spiritually, the believer in Christ, who has been 

* fi7)7anr]lofiai, and fieravoeu. j tiireiBeiu and cnrEtQeo). 

t AfXoiyze'voS and v'npaaBai. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 7 1 

cleansed from guilt by faith, needs not to have that process repeated, 
but simply requires, from day to day, to be freed from the pollution 
which is contracted as he journeys through the world. 

There are two nouns translated " knowledge," and two related 
verbs translated ** know,"* which it is sometimes important to distin- 
guish. The one form of the words is simple, the other is a compound 
with a preposition. The compound words denote full Christian 
knowledge. In one passage, 2 Cor. 6 : 9, the Authorized Version 
acknowledges the intensified meaning given to the verb by the prepo- 
sition : " as unknown, and yet well known ;' but in other passages, 
as I Cor. 13 : 12, this is overlooked. We ought also to read at Eph. 
I : 17, as in the Revised Version, ** the full knowledge of him," as 
being the great abject of the Apostle's desire for those who already 
have come to a saving knowledge of the truth. In other passages the 
necessity for change is not so obvious. 

Much obscurity results from the manner in which the word *' will " 
is used in the Authorized Version. It is, of course, the sign of the 
English future, but besides that it does service as the representative 
of two different Greek verbs. f These verbs cannot always be distin- 
guished in our language, but at least it may be made sure that they 
are not mistaken for the mere sign of the future. Thus the important 
text, John 7:17, becomes much clearer to the English reader when 
it is read, as in the Revised Version, " If any man willeth to do his 
will, he shall know of the teaching," etc. So the meaning of i Tim. 
6 : 9 becomes more obvious when we read instead of ** they that will 
/^^ rich," " they that desire to be rich." Some other passages, as 
Matt. 5 : 40, are made clearer by the use of " would " instead of 
" will." See again Acts 22 : 28, etc. 

The word J most frequently rendered " miracle," or *' miracles," 
occurs seventeen times in St. John's Gospel, thirteen times in St. 
Matthew, eleven times in St. Luke, and seven times in St. Mark. 
Now, it is a curious fact that, while this word is rendered " miracle," 
or ** miracles," thirteen times in St. John's Gospel, that rendering is 
not once given it in the other Gospels, except at Luke 23 : 8. In 
every other passage it is translated sign or signs ; and such is the 
rendering which should have been preserved throughout. The word§ 
which properly means " miracles," i.e.^ marvellous works, occurs but 
three times in the Gospels — Matt. 24 : 24, Mark 13 : 32, John 4 : 48 
— and never with reference to the works which Christ perform'^d. It 
is, therefore, to be regretted that a word which simply^uggests what is 

* yvQat^ and kniyvucLZ ; ytvuoKu and emyivuoKu. f Bi2,o) and l3ov?.oftat. 

t cfjfielov. § TepaS. 




72 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

Strange or wonderful should have such prominence assigned to it in 
connection with the works of Christ. These were " signs" rather than 
" miracles" — signs of the Divine presence fitted to impress the hearts 
of men, and not thaumaturgic acts which might excite only marvelling 
or admiration. The other word * sometime? translated " miracle," as 
at Mark 9 : 39, does not occur in St. John's Gospel at all. It is usu- 
ally rendered " mighty work," and this translation generally answers 
well, as at chap. 6 : 5, etc. But it must be observed that at Matt. 
14 : 2 and Mark 6 : 14 the Authorized Version is incorrect, the 
proper translation being " thtst powers work in him." It would have 
been well also that the rendering " mighty work" had been kept in 
many other places where it has been supplanted by '* miracle." This 
latter word, however, must almost of necessity be allpwed to stand in 
such passages as Acts 19 : 11 ; i Cor. 12 : 29. 

In the Authorized Version, at John 17 : 12 we read as follows : 
** While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name : 
those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but 
the son of perdition." The two Greek verbs f here both rendered 
'* kept" have clearly different shades of meaning, and to bring out 
these with precision adds to the beauty of the verse. The first one 
may be allowed to stand as " kept," but the second means guarded^ 
and should be so rendered. It is then seen that the clauses are very 
closely connected : the watchful guardianship, spoken of in the 
second clause as having been exercised by Christ over His disciples, 
being the cause of the safety belonging to them which is spoken of in 
the first. 

The very impressive utterance of our Lord at John 8:58 has not 
been altered in the text of the Revised Version, but a highly important 
■note has been placed on the margin. When we read the words, " Be- 
fore Abraham was, I am,'' there is nothing in the English which sug- 
gests that the word " was" means '* came into being," while the ex- 
pression " I am" denotes absolute existence. The two verbs are| 
totally different in the original, and a marked contrast is implied 
between Abraham, a created being, and the uncreated Son of God. 

There are four different wor<is translated " people" in the Author- 
ized Version. Each of these terms has its own special meaning, but 
it is impossible fully to preserve the distinction between the words in 
English. Two of them especially run together, and no attempt has 
been made to distinguish these in the Revised Version. The third 
term is generally rendered " Gentiles," or " nations," and is only 
once translated " people," at Acts 8 : 9. But the fourth § has often, 

* (5vVa//f5. \ rrjpec) and <bv7.dacD. \ ycvo/nai and a/u. § o;^;AoS. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 73 

without cause, been so rendered, as at John 7 : 20 and many other 
places. It always means the " common people," as distinguished 
from those possessed of rank or authority, and should be translated 
•* multitude," or " multitudes," as it has been throughout the Revised 
Version. 

We find five distinct verbs translated ** teach" in the Authorized 
Version. One of these occurs with that rendering only in a single 
passage, Acts 16 : 21, and is there better translated, "set forth." 
Two others are found twice with the rendering " teach," or " taught," 
and may be allowed so to stand ; but the remaining two * should be 
carefully distinguished. One is the word properly denoting '* teach," 
and occurs in multitudes of passages ; the other is a much rarer word, 
being used only four times in the New Testament. It means "to 
make disciples," and is clearly distinguished from " to teach" at 
Matt. 28 : 19, 20, though the two are confounded in the Authorized 
Version. The passage should be rendered, " Go ye therefore, and 
make disciples of all the nations . ... teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I commanded you ;" and in the other passages — 
Matt. 13 : 52 ; 27 : 57 ; Acts 14 : 21 — where the word occurs the 
same strict rendering will be found given to it in the Revised Version. 

There are some passages in which a reader of the Authorized Ver- 
sion is almost sure to imagine that there is some connection between 
different words, from the manner in which they have been translated. 
This may, for instance, be the case at James i : 6, where these words 
occur : "He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the 
wind and tossed." There is no connection whatever between the 
words wave and wavereth j and the passage stands thus in the Revised 
Version : " He that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by 
the wind and tossed." So again, at Rom. 12 : 2, where these words 
occur in the Authorized Version : " Be not conformed to this world : 
but be ye transfoi^7ned hy the renewing of your mind." Here there is 
no connection in the original between the termsf rendered " con- 
formed " and " transformed," as might be inferred from the sound 
of the words in English. The passage is thus rendered in the Revised 
Version : " Be not fashioned according to this world, but be ye trans- 
formed by the renewing of your mind." 

It is well known that two very different' Greek words | are alike 
rendered " devil " in the Authorized Version. There is, first, the 
word which occurs in such passages as Matt. 4:1; John 13 : 2, etc., 
and which has reference to the prince of darkness, /^ext there is the 

* 6i.6daKu and /u.aBrjTevc}. f cvaxvpi'0-'''Kf^oBai and /iieTajuop(povaSai. 

^ 6ia3o?.o'i and Saifxoviov, or Saitiuv. 



74 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

word which is literally " daemon," and which is so often used in 
connection with those unhappy beings who are described as daemon- 
izedy or " possessed of devils." This "possession was a disease like 
epilepsy, for the victim was ' healed,' and some kind of insanity, for 
the ' right mind ' was restored. But it was something more— the in- 
trusion of an alien force into the nervous system, impeding sensation, 
so that the patient was deaf and dumb ; with perfect organs, but with- 
out power to use them ; his will overlorded (Acts ic : 38) by an alien 
might, which created the confusion of an apparently dual conscious- 
ness. The rendering of the two distinct terms by the same word 
obliterates a very marked distinction to the English reader."* It is, 
indeed, much to be regretted that the word " daemon" was not intro- 
duced into the earliest versions of the New Testament which were 
made into our language. Had that been done, the expression would 
soon have established itself as clearly marking a distinction between 
the evil spirits so named and the great adversary — the devil. In the 
Revised Version the common rendering has been retained as now almost 
a matter of necessity, but wherever the word "daemon" has been 
translated " devil " the fact is indicated on the margin. 

There is a simple Greek verb which is usually and propedy trans- 
lated " judge," but it is erroneously rendered " condemn" at John 3 : 
17, 18. In like manner, the simple substantives connected with it are 
generally represented by " judgment" in English, but improperly by 
"damnation" at Matt. 23 : ^t,^ Mark 12 : 40, and other places. On 
the other hand, a compound of the verb referred to with a preposi- 
tion is somewhat inexactly rendered by " judge" at i Cor. 4 : 3, 4, 
5, although all that has there been done in the Revised Version is to 
place another translation on the margin. The reference seems to be 
to the preliminary examination of accused persons — what is known in 
Scotch law as a " precognition." We have an example of this at 
Acts 25 : 26 ; but, however useful this may be in human affairs, the 
Apostle protests against it in matters spiritual as an unwarrantable 
anticipation of the judgment of the great day. There is another com- 
pound of the same verb which is also improperly rendered " judge" 
at I Cor. II : 31 ; it should b'e translated " discern," as in ver. 29. 
A third t compound is correctly rendered " condemn," as at Matt. 
12 : 41 and most other passages, but "damned," which occurs at 
Mark 16 : 16 and Rom. 14 : 23, is now too strong an expression, and 
has been avoided in the Revised Version. 

* Eadle's " English Bible," ii. 433. 

f The several Greek terms are Kplvu, Kpl/xa, Kplaic, avaKpivu diaKpivu, KaTaKpivo. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 75 

Three words * are in common translated " brightness" in the 
Authorized Version, which, nevertheless, admit of being easily dis- 
tinguished. One o'f the expressions occurs in that striking passage, 
Heb. I : 3, in which we read of Christ, " Who being the brightness 
of his glory," etc. Here the word might be mistakenly supposed to 
mean a reflected splendor, but the true meaning is a radiance which is 
flashed forth ; and therefore the translation *' effulgence" has been 
adopted in the Revised Version. At Acts 26 : 13, on the other hand, 
" brightness" is the exact translation of the Greek, while at 2 Thess. 
2 : 8 it is totally wrong, and must give place to some such word as 
*' manifestation." 

The Greek words which denote the act of dying and the state of 
death respectively have not unfrequently been confounded in the 
Authorized Version, sometimes to the great obscuration of the sense. 
Thus, the constantly recurring words "are dead," in Rom. 6 : 2, 
etc., should be translated " died." This emendation is specially im- 
portant at 2 Cor. 5 : 14, where the common rendering, "We thus 
judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead^' completely ruins 
the sense. It should be, " We thus judge, that one died for all, 
therefor* all died''\ — that is, all believers died in and with Christ. 

* aTvavyasfxa^ T^afi'Kpdrrj'i, '7ri<pdveia, f cnveBavov. 



•J^ COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



CHAPTER V. 

CORRECTION OF NEEDLESS VARIATIONS IN THE TRANSLATION OF 

THE SAME GREEK WORDS. 

This is the opposite error to that which was considered in the pre- 
ceding chapter, and is not less to be regretted. It is even more char- 
acteristic of the Authorized Version than the former, for it was com- 
mitted of set purpose by our translators. They do not say that they 
wilfully confounded one Greek word with another in their translation ; 
but they do tell us that it was one of the principles of their work 
to vary in the renderings which were given in different passages to 
the same words in the original. In their noble preface, entitled " The 
Translators to the Reader," they say, toward the close : "Another 
thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have 
not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of 
words, as some, peradventure, would wish that we had done, because 
they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as 
they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of 
that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same 
thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same 
sense everywhere), we were especially careful, and made a conscience 
according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion 
in the same particular word — as, for example, if we translate the 
Hebrew or Greek once by purpose^ never to call it intent j if one where 
Journeying^ never travelling ; if one where think^ never suppose j if one 
where pain, never ache j if one where y'^, never gladfiess, etc. — thus 
to mince the matter we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, 
and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit 
to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or 
syllables ? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free ? 
use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodi- 
ously ? . . . 

" We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing 
towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written 
of a certain great philosopher that he should say that those logs were 
happy that were made images to be worshipped, for their fellows, as 
good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire, so if we should say, as it 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 'J'J 

were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible 
always ; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for- 
ever, v/e might be taxed, peradventure, with S^. James's words, 
namely, * To be partial in ourselves^ and judges of evil thoughts.' 

Now, it must readily be granted that, so some extent, this variety 
of rendering was not only justifiable but necessary. It is most certain 
that the same Greek word has not always the same meaning in differ- 
ent places ; to insist, therefore, on always rendering it by the same 
word in English would be absurd. This appears clearly enough from 
the variety of senses which once word may possess in our own lan- 
guage. Take, e.g.^ the one expression " post," and consider how varied 
is its signification in such phrases as ** He held that post," " He 
missed the post," " He fixed the post," ** He travelled post," etc. 
All these varying significations of the word would of necessity require 
the use of different terms in translating the English phrases into 
another language. And so is it with Greek when rendered into Eng- 
lish, Different words must be chosen at different places to represent 
the original according to the exigencies of the several passages. Thus, 
the same verb which is properly rendered by " comfort" at Matt. 
5 : 4, etc., must be translated by " beseech" at Matt. 8 : 5, etc., 
and by " exhort" at i Peter 5:1, etc. Thus, too, the noun which 
is rendered " kind" at Matt. 13 : 47, etc., must be translated by 
such a word as " race" at Acts 7 : 13, etc., and " offspring" at Acts 
17 : 28, etc. No one, therefore, would insist on the same English 
word being used for the same Greek word in all passages. Variation 
is to some extent an absolute necessity, and the only question is 
whether our translators have varied their renderings unnecessarily 
and unreasonably, so as, in fact, to have diminished the value of their 
work. That such is in reality the case will become plain to every 
one from the following illustrations. 

We may begin by looking at some passages in which an interesting 
or important truth is obscured by the needless changes of rendering 
which are adopted. 

Thus, at I Cor. 3 : 17 we read in the Authorized Version, ** If any 
man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.'' But the Greek 
verb is the same in both clauses, and thus the solemn thought is sug- 
gested that, as is the sin so will be the punishment : God will treat 
the man as the man has treated the sacred temple of his own soul. 
This correspondence between the guilt contracted and the penalty in- 
flicted is entirely veiled from the English reader 1;^ the capricious 
variety of rendering adopted, and the same word should manifestly be 
preserved in both clauses : " If any man destroyeth the temple of God, 



I 



78 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

« 

him shall God destroy." Again, what reader of Mark 15 : 33, 
" There was darkness over the whole /and until the ninth hour," and 
of Luke 23 : 44, " There was darkness over all the ear^/i until the 
ninth hour," would imagine that the original of both passages is ex- 
actly the same ? The one Evangelist is made to differ from the other 
in a most important particular by the totally uncalled for and unwar- 
rantable variety of rendering which is adopted. Either " land " or 
" earth" (doubtless, I think, the former) ought manifestly to be chos- 
en in both passages, as well as at Matt. 27 : 45. One other example 
of the darkening effect of a needless variation of rendering is found at 
Rev. 4 : 4. The Authorized Version there reads, " And round about 
the throne were four and twenty seats : and upon the seats I sav/ four 
and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment ; and they had on 
their heads crowns of gold." Under the influence of a timidity 
which shrank from appearing to make creatures equal in dignity to 
the great Creator, our translators have here failed to do justice to the 
original. The word rendered " throne" and " seats" is the same in 
Greek, so that we ought to read, **And round about the throne were 
four and twenty /'/^r^i^d'i'," the great scriptural truth being thus illus- 
trated that Christ's redeemed not only see His glory, but share in it 
— they " reign together with him" (2 Tim. 2 : 12). A like mistaken 
scrupulousness has prevented the proper rendering " throne" being 
given at Rev. 2 : 13 and 16 : jo. Instead of " Satan's seat'' and 
" the j-(?<2/ of the beast," we ought to read, ** Satan's throne'' and 
" \}iiQthro}ieQi the beast," for this rendering is in keeping with the fact 
that in the Apocalypse, " asnowhere else in Scripture, is set forth the 
hellish parody of the heavenly kingdom : the conflict between the 
true King of the earth and the usurping king ;"* the mimicking by 
Satan, in his presumptuous vainglory of that real and eternal majesty 
which is possessed by Christ. 

Let us now turn to some passages in which a needless variety of 
rendering is apt to suggest a baseless idea to the English reader, or at 
least to blunt for him the force of the original. 

When these words are read at Matt. 25 : 46, " And these shall go 
away into everlasting ^wnx^x^^xit ; but the righteous into Wit eternal,''' 
the English reader can hardly fail to suppose that some diversity ex- 
ists in the original, and thus, perhaps, is led to perplex himself as to 
the difference of meaning between "everlasting" and "eternal." 
But since the Greek word is the same in both clauses, the translation 
evidently ought to be consistent, as in the Revised Version. Again, 
it has frequently been noticed how capricious and hurtful are the 
* Trench, " On Authorized Version," p. 54. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. . 79 

varieties ot rendering given in the fourth chapter of Romans to the 
one Greek word translated, first of all, " counted " in verse 3. The 
word occurs no fewer than eleven times in the course of the chapter, 
and is variously translated "count" (ver. 3, 5), "reckon" (ver. 4, 
9, 10), " impute" (ver. 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24), the version turning from 
one expression to another in the most arbitrary and unaccountable 
manner. It is needless to say how the English reader is apt to be 
confused by such changes, and how much is gained in point of clear- 
ness by the retention of the same rendering throughout. In the 
seventh chapter of the same Epistle the force of the argument in ver. 
7, 8 is greatly weakened through want of uniformity in the rendering. 
Words radically the same in the original are variously rendered 
"lust," "covet," "concupiscence," in the Authorized Version: 
thus, " What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, 
I had not known sin, but by the law : for I had not known lust^ ex- 
cept the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion 
by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. 
For without the law sin was dead." How much more clear and 
satisfactory does the argument appear when we read, " What shall we 
say then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Ilowbeit, I had not known 
sin, except through the law : for I had not known coveting^ except 
the law had said. Thou shalt not covet. But sin, finding an occasion, 
wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting. For 
apart from the law sin is dead." The same injurious effect of what 
was, no doubt, intended as an agreeable variety of rendering is notice- 
able in the second Epistle to the Corinthians. That epistle is re- 
markable for the use of key-words (if we may so call them) occurring 
one after the other. In the first chapter the two antithetic expressions 
" comfort" and " affliction" are repeated again and again (ver. 4, 6, 
etc.) by the Apostle ; but the impression thus made on a reader of the 
original is weakened to an English reader by the capricious substitu- 
tion of " tribulation" for " affliction," and " consolation" for " com. 
fort." So, again, where the Apostle introduces the word " veil " or 
its derivatives, at chap. 3 : 15, 18 ; 4 : 3, the connection between the 
verses is obliterated by the renderings, "with open face" instead of 
" with u?iveiled idiCt^'' and " if our gospel be kid'' for " if our gospel 
\s veiled.''' So at several other passages of the Epistle. 

With regard to quotations from the Old Testament, it is obvious 
that where these are made in the same words in the Greek they ought 
to be similarly given in English. But this is far fro^m^ being the case 
in the Authorized Version. Thus, the great text. Gen. 15: 6, is 
quoted four times by St. Paul in the very same manner (Rom. 4 : 3, 



80 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

9, 22 ; Gal. 3 : 6), and each time is somewhat varied in the transla 
tion : (i) "was counted mvAo him for righteousness," (2) " wa& 
reckoned \.Q Abraham for righteousness," (3) " was imputed to him for 
righteousness," (4) "was accounted to him for righteousness." 
Again, Deut. 32 : 35 is twice quoted (Rom. 12 : 19 ; Heb. 10 : 30) 
in the very same words, yet it is thus variously rendered in the two 
passages : (i) " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord," 
{2) '* Vengeance (belongeth) unto me, I will recompense, saith the 
Lord." Once more, the same arbitrary variation of texts quoted 
from the Old Testament in exactly the same words occurs in passages 
so near each other as Heb. 3:11 and Heb. 4 : 3. The words are 
rendered, (i) " So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my 
rest," and (2) " As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into 
my rest ;" while the last clause is repeated in the same form at ver. 5, 
" If they shall enter into my rest." It is well known that this latter 
form of expression, uninteUigible in English, is, according to Hebrew 
idiom, equivalent to a strong negative, so that the clause should 
always be rendered, " They shall not enter into my rest." 

Not a word need be said in support of the position that parallel pas- 
sages in the Gospels and other parts of Scripture, which are expressed 
in the same words in Greek, ought to be similarly given in English. Any 
other course almost amounts to unfaithfulness to the original and can- 
not fail to mislead the reader. Yet the Authorized Version is a very 
great offender in this respect. The following examples out of many 
may be quoted. At Matt. 4 : 6 we find " concer?iing thee," while at 
Luke 4 : 10 the very same words are rendered " over thee ;" and in 
like manner, exactly coincident expressions are translated at Matt. 
4 : 19, " Follow me," at Mark i : 17, " Come ye after me ;" at Matt. 
10 : 14, "the dust," at Luke 9 : 5, "the very dust;" at Matt, 
10 : 22, " but he that endureth to the end shall be saved," at Mark 
13 : 13, " but he that shall endure the same shall be saved ;" at 
Matt. II : 19, " behold a man gluttonous,", at Luke 7 : 34, " behold 
a gluttonous man ;" at Matt. 17 : 19, " apart," at Mark 9 : 28, 
"privately;" at Matt. 19 : 7, "a writing," at Mark 10 : 4, "a 
bill ;" at Matt. 26 ; 41, "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into 
temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak," at 
Mark 14 : 38, " Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. 
The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." And so in a multi- 
tude of other places, there not being a single chapter in the first three 
Gospels treating of the same subjects in which this needless and hurtful 
tendency to variation is not perceptible. So is it, to some extent, 
with parallel passages in the Epistles. Ephesians and Colossians, 2 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 8 1 

Peter and Jude, have many points of connection between them- 
selves, but these are considerably obscured to the English reader by 
varieties of rendering which are adopted for the same words in the 
several Epistles. Thus, the word which is translated " working" at 
Eph. I : 9 is given as " operation" at Col. 2 : 12 ; " lowliness" at 
Eph. 4 : 2 is ** humbleness of mind " at Col. 3 : 12 ; ** compacted " 
at Eph. 4:6 is " knit together" at Col. 2 : 19 ; "be obedient" at 
Eph. 6 ; 5 is " obey" at Col. 3 : 22 ; " government" at 2 Pet. 2 : 10 
is *' dominion" at Jude, ver. 8 ; and " mist" at 2 Pet. 2 : 17 is 
" blackness" at Jude, ver. 13. It is evident to how great disadvan- 
tage the English reader is thus subjected in seeking to compare Scrip- 
ture with Scripture, and to derive light from one passage for the full 
understanding of another. 

If not practically very important, it is at least interesting and desir- 
able that uniformity of rendering should be preserved in regard to ex- 
pressions which are fitted to suggest the individuality of the sacred 
writers to an English reader. They have all a more or less marked 
style of their own. St. Matthew's Gospel is distinguished by a strong 
Hebrew coloring, St. Mark's by a somewhat rude yet graphic char- 
acter, St. Luke's by a comparatively close approach to classical 
models of composition, and St. John's by the softness and fulness of 
its diction. Each of the Evangelists also displays a predilection for 
certain forms of expression. St. Matthew generally uses the phrase, 
" kingdom of heaveti^'' where the other Evangelists have " kingdom of 
God ;' the formula " gospel of the kingdom" is also peculiar to him, 
and he is very partial to the use of the Greek particle, for " then," 
which occurs no less than ninety times in his Gospel — oftener, that is, 
than in all the other Gospels taken together. St. Mark's favorite ex- 
pression is " straightway," which is found more than forty times in 
his Gospel — that is, again, oftener than in all the other Gospels put 
together. Now, it is obvious that such marked features in the first 
two Gospels should be preserved, as they easily may be, in transla- 
tion. But the Authorized Version has, to a considerable extent, 
failed to do this in the case of St. Mark, by giving the one word 
which he so constantly uses such varying translations as " straight- 
way," "immediately," *' forthwith," "anon," "as soon as," while 
the first of these renderings might have been preserved throughout. 
St. Luke evinces no very striking fondness for any particular term 
or form of expression : his vocabulary is far wider than that of the 
other Evangelists ; but it may be remarked that \^ile he is no such 
mannerist as St. Matthew or St. Mark, the Greek preposition for 
" with" appears in his Gospel oftener than in all the others. St. John, 



82 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

again, is at once seen to delight in the repetition of certain words, 
such as to abide, and to bear witness. The former verb occurs over 
forty times in his Gospel, and the latter over thirty times, while its 
cognate substantive is ioMX\^ fourteejt times. But this is, to a great 
extent, hidden from an English reader through the variety of render- 
ings admitted in the Authorized Version. For "*' abide" we have 
"remain," "tarry," "endure," "dwell," "continue," "being 
present," while in almost every passage " abide" is quite a satisfac- 
tory translation. For " witness," again, we find the needless varia- 
tions, "bear witness," "testify," "bear record," "gave" (in the 
first Epistle of St. John), and " hath good report" (in third Epistle), 
while the connected substantive, " witness," is every now and then 
replaced by " record "or " testimony." With respect to St. Paul, 
it has been observed how readily he catches up and uses for his own 
purpose an expression which has fallen from the lips of an opponent. 
This may be illustrated by a reference to Acts 26 : 24, 25, though 
the point is lost in our common English version. The same word is 
used in both verses ; and if instead of, " Paul, thou art beside thy- 
self," we read, " Paul, thou art mad;' we then feel the force of the 
Apostle's reply : " I am not mad, most excellent Festus ; but speak 
forth words of truth and soberness." All such minute accuracies, 
though they may be deemed trifling, should be carefully attended to 
in translation. 

It is strange to notice what different degrees of force are given to 
the same word in different passages of the Authorized Version. Thus, 
what is " beloved " in Matt. 17:5 and Mark 9 : 7 becomes " dear" in 
Eph. 5:1, while it ascends into " well beloved " at Mark 12:6, and 
"dearly beloved" at Rom. 12 : 19. No English reader would 
imagine that it is the same word in the original which is thus rendered 
with such varying degrees of intensity. So the term which means 
" palsied " (Luke 5 : 18, etc.) sinks into " feeble" at Heb. 12 : 12. 
This sort of caprice may sometimes be found in two successive verses. 
The word, for instance, which is translated simply at Gal 4:8" did 
service" rises in the following verse to this rendering, "to be in 
bondage." In parallel passages, again, we find a varying force given 
to the very same words. Thus, what is " much displeased " at Mark 
10 : 41 is represented by " moved with indignation" at Matt. 20 : 24, 
and what is simply " chief " at Matt. 20 : 27 becomes " chiefest" at 
Mark 10 : 44. A reflecting English reader cannot fail to be puzzled 
by such groundless variations. 

Much inconsistency exists in the Authorized Version with respect 
to the translation given of the terms Rabbi and Rabboni. Sometimes 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 83 

the original word is retained, as at Matt. 23 : 7, John i : 38, etc. ; 
at other times it is rendered " Master," as at Matt. 26 : 25 ; John 
4 : 31, etc. ; while Rabboni is preserved at John 20 : 16, but trans- 
lated " Lord " at Mark 10 : 51. Being a well-known title of respect 
among the Jews, the term " Rabbi" should have been preserved 
throughout ; and this seems specially important at Matt. 26 : 49, 
Mark 15 : 45, as suggesting the profound dissimulation of Judas, who 
spoke to Christ in this style of complimentary address while in the 
very act of betraying Him. 

There are two closely related words, which occur at Acts 19 : 37 
and Rom. 2 : 22, which are so differently rendered in the Authorized 
Version that no English reader would ever suspect any connection 
between them. In the first passage we find " robbers of churches^'" 
and in the second " dost thou commit sacrilege?'' Heathen temples 
are in both cases referred to, so that the respective renderings should 
be '* robbers of temples" and " dost thou rob temples ?" 

Another passage may be referred to, in the second Epistle to the 
Corinthians, in which variation of rendering has broken the unity and 
connection of the Apostle's train of thought. Having spoken of the 
solemn issues which hung on the acceptance or rejection of the Gos. 
pel by those who heard it, he exclaims, at chap. 2 : 16, " And who is 
s7tffiicentiox these things?" After some intervening remarks, intro.. 
duced in his own characteristic way, the Apostle returns, at chap.. 
3 : 5, to the consideration of the " sufficiency" referred to, and giveSs 
an answer to his own solemn question in these words : " Not that 
we are sufficient of ourselves to account anything as from ourselves ;■ 
but our sufficiency is of God, who also made us suffictetit as ministers 
of a new covenant," etc. The translation in the Authorized Version 
of the last clause as " who also hath j?iade us able ministers of the New 
Testament," completely mars the harmony of the passage. 

The above examples are sufficient to show how capricious, and often 
hurtful, are the different renderings often given to the same Greek 
word or phrase in the ordinary English version. Many of the varia- 
tions are harmless so far as the meaning is concerned, but are, never- 
theless, to be regretted as misleading to a reader who cannot consult 
the original. When such a reader finds at James 2 : 2 the expression 
"goodly apparel," and in the very next verse " gay clothing," would 
he ever imagine that these different terms are a translation of the very 
same Greek words ? Again, would the thought ever occur to him- 
that the word rendered " rule" and " line of thin^' represented the 
same original in the following enigmatical passage as it stands in the 
Authorized Version ? " Not boasting of things without our measure,, 



84 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

that is, of other men's labors ; but having hope, when your faith is 
increased, that we shall be enlarged by you, according to our rule 
abundantly, to preach the Gospel in the regions beyond you, and not 
to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand " (2 
Cor. 10 : 15, 16). 

After all that has been said, no sufficient idea \7ill have been con- 
veyed to readers unacquainted with the subject of the vast amount of 
unnecessary variation in the translation of the same Greek words 
which exists in the Authorized Version. Pages might be filled with 
additional examples. The most arbitrary and uncalled-for changes 
will frequently be found in the compass of a few verses, or even of 
the same verse. Thus, the word rendered '* profession" in i Tim. 
6 : 12 is changed into " confession" in ver. 13 ; " jailor," in Acts 
16 : 23, gives place to " keeper of the prison" in ver. 27. "God, 
even the Father," at Rom. 15 : 6, etc., becomes " God and the 
Father" at Col. 3:17, and " the God and Father" at i Pet. i : 3, 
etc. The word rendered " truth" in the parenthetical clause of i 
Tim. 2 : 7 appears as ** verity" at the close of the verse ; and so on, 
in almost innumerable cases, the variations generally having no 
ground of advantage or necessity, and serving only to bewilder and 
mislead the English reader. 

The great object to be kept in view in every translation is to place 
the reader of it as nearly as possible on a footing of equality with one 
who has access to the original. This is especially desirable in regard 
to a version of the Holy Scriptures. Those who have the privilege 
of reading God's Word in the form in which it came from Himself 
ought to recognize it as their bounden duty to do their utmost that 
their less favored brethren may have as exact and accurate a transcript 
of the original in their own language as can be furnished. To secure 
this object, scholarship may worthily put forth all its powers and dili- 
gence strain its efforts to the uttermost. The plain man's Bible — 
though it cannot be all to him that the original is to the scholar — 
should, at least, contain no obscurities or errors which erudition and 
painstaking are able to remove. It should be such, for example, as 
that he shall have it in his powfer, through consistency of translation, 
to form an opinion respecting the questions discussed in connection 
with the verbal agreements and differences found in the first three 
Evangelists. It should be such that he will be able, by means of a 
Concordance, to compare passages in which the same word occurs, 
and thus to make them mutually explanatory of each other. For the 
reasons that have been stated this cannot be done with any certainty 
while using the ordinary English translation, since in it there is, on 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 



S' 



the one hand, an unnecessary confounding of one Greek word with 
another in the rendering which is given ; while, on the other hand, 
there is a vast amount of needless variation in the traiislation of the 
same Greek words ; but both these causes of possible, or certain, mis- 
take have been guarded against in the Revised Version. 



PART III, 




THE ANGLO-AMERICAN REVISION, 

BY AN AMERICAN REVISER. 



I. THE ENGLISH VERSION OF 1 6 II. 

The English version of the Holy Scriptures now in common use 
was prepared, on the basis of previous versions, by a large body of 
divines and scholars of the Church of England appointed by King 
James the First, whose name it bears. His connection with it, how- 
ever, is only nominal. He accepted, at the Hampton Court Con- 
ference, in January, 1604 (from vanity and policy, rather than from 
any higher motive), the suggestion of Dr. Reynolds (President of Cor- 
pus Christi College, Oxford), but gave the work no pecuniary aid, and 
no sanction after it was finished. By granting the request for a new 
version he pleased the Puritan party ; and by abusing the Geneva ver- 
sion, with its alleged " seditious and traitorous notes," as "the worst" 
ever made, he conciliated the Conformists and allayed their suspicion. 
Both parties heartily acquiesced, and united in what proved to be a 
necessary and most useful work. 

The revisers (nominally fifty-four, but actually forty-seven in number) 
were divided into six companies, each being assigned a certain portion 
of the Scriptures, under the restriction of fifteen rules, and met, two 
at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. They re- 
ceived no compensation, except indirectly by way of preferments, and 
the necessary expenses were mostly paid by the publisher, Robert 
Barker. Their names are now forgotten, but their work still lives, and 
will never die. They left us no official record of their labors. 
" Never" (says Dr. Scrivener) " was a great enterprise like the 
production of our Authorized Version carried out with less know- 
ledge handed down to posterity of the laborers, tjieir method and 
order of working." Selden, in his "Table TallcT^* has preserved 
a hint as to the mode of proceeding, saying : " The translation in 



88 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

King James' time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible 
was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the 
Apocrypha to Andrew Downs), and then they met together, and one 
read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either 
of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. ; if they 
found any fault, they spoke ; if not, he read on." It is rather strange 
that among the modern versions he should have omitted Luther's 
German version, which is certainly far more important than the Italian 
and Spanish. 

The translation of the whole Bible appeared at London in 1611, 
seven years after the Hampton Court Conference, where it originated, 
in a large folio volume, printed in black letter, with an adulatory 
dedication ** to the Most High and Mighty Prince James, by the 
grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender 
of the Faith," etc., and with a long and learned preface by Dr. Miles 
Smith, one of the translators. It gradually superseded all older trans- 
lations by its superior merits, without formal authorization either by 
King, Privy Council, or Parliament, or Convocation. It derives its 
authority from the verdict of the Christian public. This is the best 
kind of authority. 

In forming a just estimate of this greatest achievement of the Eng- 
lish Church, we must first of all remember that it is not a personal 
and sectional, but a truly national and catholic work. It cannot be 
traced to any single author or authors, like Wiclif's Bible and 
Luther's Bible. It resembles in this respect the Apostles' Creed and 
the Anglican Liturgy. It is the mature result of three generations of 
the Reformation period. It gathers up the ripe fruits of the previous, 
labors of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Cranmer, the Bishops' Bible, 
the Geneva Bible, and the Rheims New Testament. It is especially 
indebted to William Tyndale (1525-1535) for its idiom and vocabu- 
lary, and to the Geneva translators (1560) for its accuracy.* 

* In this respect the king's instructions and his contempt for the Geneva ver- 
sion were happily overruled by the better knowledge and judgment of his transla- 
tors. He ordered the " Bishops' Bible," prepared in the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
(1568 and 1572), to bemadc the basis, |)ut it exercised far less influence than the more 
popular " Geneva Bible," which was prepared by English exiles and confessors in 
Geneva under the eyes of Calvin and Beza, directly from the original Hebrew and 
Greek throughout (1557 and 1560), and issued in more than a hundred editions. The 
Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate, which 
appeared at Rheims in 1582 (followed by the translation of the Old Testament at 
Douay in 1610), is not even mentioned in the instructions, and yet was evidently 
of great use. The examples of mistranslations which Dr. Reynolds quoted at the 
Hampton Court Conference as arguments for the need of a new version, are all 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 89 

But upon the whole the version of 161 1 surpassed all its predeces- 
sors. It is probably the best version ever made for public use. It is 
not simply a translation, but a living reproduction of the original 
Scriptures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they 
were learned. It reads like an original work, such as the prophets 
and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for Eng- 
lish readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich resources of the 
English language, the most cosmopolitan of all modern languages, and 
blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even 
its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of 
English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspira- 
tion from this ** pure well of English undefiled." Its best recommen- 
dation is its universal adoption and use in every Protestant church and 
household that speaks the English tongue. It has admirably served 
its purpose for more than two hundred and fifty years, and is so in- 
terwoven with English and American literature that it can never be 
entirely superseded. Next to Christianity itself, the Version of 161 1 
is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the 
English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all that is 
truly valuable in our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and hap- 
piness to our domestic, social, and national life. 

taken from the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, and were corrected in the 
Geneva Bible. "It is obvious," says Dr. Moulton (" History of the English 
Bible," p. 207), "that the Genevan and Rhemish versions have exercised much 
greater influence than the Great, and Bishops' Bible.'" He gives as a specimen a 
passage from Isa. 54 : 11-17, which contains 182 words ; of these, 86 words are the 
same in five or six English versions ; 96 vary, and among these variations more 
than 60 are taken from the Geneva Bible, and only 12 from the Bishops' Bible 
(pp. 201-206;. No authority was more frequently followed, both for text and in- 
terpretation, than Beza of Geneva, whose Greek Testament (the fourth edition, 
1589, and the fifth edition, 1598) was the chief basis of the Authorized Version, as 
Dr. Ezra Abbot has shown (in Schaff 's essay on Revision, pp. xxviii s^.). Dr. 
Westcott (in his " History of the English Bible," pp. 294 s(/^.) has proved by a 
careful comparison the great and beneficial influence of Beza, both upon the 
Geneva Version and the Authorized Version. The University of Cambridge, in 
thanking Beza for the valuable gift of Codex D of the New Testament in 1581, 
acknowledges its preference for him and John Calvin above any man that ever lived 
since the days of the apostles. (See Dr. Scrivener, " Codex Beza," Introd p. 
vi., and " Introd. to the Critic, of the N. Test." 2d ed., p. 112.) A number of 
errors, as well as excellencies, can be traced to Beza, and some have found an 
injurious effect of his strong predestinarianism in the rendering of a few passages 
(Matt. 20 : 23 ; Acts. 2 : 47 ; Heb. 10 : 38) ; but this may be disputed. Upon the 
whole, the revisers could not do better than follow Calvinr^nd Beza, who were 
undoubtedly the ablest biblical scholars of the Reformed Church in the sixteenth 
century. Comp. Eadie. " The English Bible," vol. ii. 16 s^g'., 30. 






90 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

But with all its acknowledged excellencies, it is the product <;£ im- 
perfect men, and has innumerable minor errors and defects.* This 
has long since been felt by those who know it best and love it most. 
It may be greatly improved without sacrificing any of its merits. God 
has not seen fit to provide the Church, by a miracle, with infallible 
translators any more than with infallible transcribers, printers, and 
readers. He desires a worship in spirit and in truth, not an idolatry 
of the letter. The translators had sound principles, except that of 
unnecessary variations in rendering, and they made the best use of 
their resources ; but the resources of the seventeenth century were 
limited : biblical philology, geography, and archaeology were yet in their 
infancy, and comparative philology and textual criticism were not yet 
born. Since that time biblical scholarship in all its branches has 
made vast progress, especially within the last fifty years. The Greek 
and Hebrew languages, with all their cognate dialects, are better known 
now than ever before. The oldest and best uncial manuscripts 
of the Greek Testament have recently been discovered and thoroughly 
examined, together with the ancient versions and patristic quotations. 
The lands of the Bible have been made as familiar to scholars as their 
native country, and the Land and the Book illustrate each other to 
the present generation as they did to the original readers on the banks 
of the Nile, at the foot of Mount Sinai, on, the shores of Lake Gen- 
nesareth, and the top of Mount Olivet. 

Hence the growing demand in England and America for a thorough, 
yet conservative revision, that shall be faithful to the original Greek 
and Hebrew Scriptures, and yet faithful also to the idiom and vocab- 
ulary of the Authorized Version, so as to read like a new book, with 
all the charms and sacred associations of the old. In other words, 
the age calls for such a revision as shall purge the old version of its 
errors and inconsistencies, adapt it to the language and scholarship of 
the nineteenth century, command the confidence of all English- 

* The first two editions of 1611 had also a large number of serious typograph- 
ical errors, such as "Judas" for "Jesus" (in Matt. 26 ; 36) ; " serve thee" for 
" serve me" (Ex 9 : 13) ; " hoops" for " hooks" ; " plaine" for " plague" ; "ye 
shall not eat" for " ye shall eat ;" " shewed " for " hewed," etc. See a long list 
in Dr. Eadie's "The English Bible," vol. ii 291 sqq, A great many typo- 
graphical blunders and variations crept in in subsequent editions. A committee oT 
the American Bible Society, in examining six different editions of the Authorized 
Version, discovered nearly 24,000 variations in the text and punctuation. See 
" Report of the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the Bible, 
presented by the Committee on Versions 10 the Board of Managers of the Amer- 
ican Bible Society, and adopted May ist; 1851" (printed in the American Bible 
House, p. 31). 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. oi 



speaking churches, and be a new bond of union and strength among 
them. 

This is the sole object of the revision, which was undertaken as a 
common work for the benefit of all the English readers of the Word 
of God, and which has been carried on for the last ten years by about 
eighty biblical scholars of England and the United States. 

II. THE CANTERBURY REVISION OF 1870. 

The Anglo American Revision originated, after long and thorough 
discussion of the subject, in the Convocation of Canterbury, the 
mother church of Anglo-Saxon Christendom ; but by a rare combina- 
tion of circumstances it assumed at the very outset an oecumenical 
character, co-extensive with the English-speaking community of the 
old and new world. It was first intrusted to a commission of sixteen 
biblical scholars— -eight bishops and eight presbyters— of the Church 
of England, appointed by Convocation, May 6th, 1870, under certain 
rules of a conservative, yet more liberal character than those of King 
James. The Church of England is the mother of the Authorized 
Version, and has an undoubted right to take the lead in any move- 
ment for an improvement of the same. She still represents the largest 
membership, the strongest institutions, the richest literature, among 
those ecclesiastical organizations which have sprung from the com- 
mon English stock. She would never accept a revision made by any 
other denomination. She has all the necessary qualifications of learn- 
ing and piety to produce, without foreign aid, as good a version for 
our age as King James' revisers produced for their age. 

But, on the other hand, it is equally clear that a revision of exclu- 
sively Anglican authorship could not command the confidence and 
secure the acceptance of other denominations. No sectarian version 
can succeed even within sectarian limits. There is a commonwealth 
of Christian life and scholarship which transcends all sectarian bound- 
aries, however useful and necessary they may be in their own place. 
Times have considerably changed since the reing of King James, who 
a could conceive of no State without a king, and of no Church without 
bishop, and who, at the Hampton Court Conference, laid down his short 
method with Dissenters in these words : " I will make them conform 
themselves, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse, 
just hang them, that is all." English Christendom has wonderfully 
spread, and embraces now two powerful nations, wjiich have an equal 
inheritance in the English Bible, and can justly claim a share in its 
revision for their own use. The British and American Bible Societies 



92 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

distribute more Bibles now m one year than were previously circulated 
in a whole century. 

This was felt by the originators of the movement. The Anglican 
Committee was therefore clothed, at the time of its appointment, with 
power " to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to 
7vhatever nation or religious body they may belong y Under this wise 
and liberal rule even Roman Catholics and Jews might be invited, but 
catholicity has its limits in the extent of sympathy and the laws of co- 
operation. We must aim at what is attainable, and not waste time 
and strength on Utopian schemes. 

Accordingly, at the first meeting of the Committee of Convocation, 
under the presidency of the late Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of 
"Winchester, it was resolved to enlarge the Committee by appointing 
about forty distinguished biblical scholars of the various Churches of 
Great Britain. A few declined (among them Cardinal Newman and Dr. 
Pusey), but most of them accepted, and others were added. Several 
changes have taken place by death and resignation. 

The Committee was divided into two Companies, one for the revision 
of the Old Testament (presided over by the Bishop of Winchester), the 
other for the revision of the New (under the chairmanship of the 
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol). They held regular monthly meet- 
ings in the Jerusalem Chamber, of historic fame, and in the Chapter 
Library, belonging to the Deanery of Westminster. The members co- 
operated on terms of equality, but the Episcopal members are, as may 
be expected, largely in the majority. The whole number of English 
revisers in 1880 amounted to 52 (27 in the Old Testament Company, 
25 in the New Testament Company). More than two thirds belong 
to the Church of England. The Independents, the Wesley an s, 
the Baptists, and the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland (which had 
no share in the Authorized Version except as the disowned mother of 
King James), are well represented in the Committee. Among these 
revisers are several of the ablest and soundest biblical scholars of the 
age, who would be selected by all competent judges as preeminently 
fitted for the task. 

III. AMERICAN CO-OPERATION. 

Soon after the organization of the English Committee, a courteous 
invitation was extended to American scholars to co-operate with them 
in this work of common interest. In view of the great distance, it 
was deemed best to organize a separate Committee, that should fairly 
represent the biblical scholarship of the leading Churches and literary 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 93 

institutions of the United States. Such a Committee, consisting of 
about thirty members, was formed in 1871, and entered upon active 
work in October, 1872, when the first revision of the synoptical Gos- 
pels was received. It was likewise divided into two Companies, which 
met every month (except in July and August) in the Bible House at 
New York (but without any connection with the American Bible 
Society), and co-operated with their English brethren on the same 
principles and with the intention of bringing out one and the same re- 
vision for both countries. Ex-President Dr. Woolsey, of New Haven, 
acted as permanent chairman of the New Testament Company, 
Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, as chairman of the Old Testament 
Company. The two Committees exchanged the results of their labors 
in confidential communications. The New Testament was completed 
in October, 1880, just five hundred years after the first Epglish 
translation of the whole Bible by Wiclif. The revision of the Old 
Testament is still in progress on both sides of the Atlantic, and will 
be finished in three or four years. 

If it be asked by what authority the American Committee was ap- 
pointed, we can only say, by the authority of the British Committee 
which was vested in it from the beginning by the Convocation of Can- 
terbury. The American Churches were not consulted, except the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, which declined to act officially. The 
selection was carefully made from expert biblical scholars (mostly 
professors of Greek and Hebrew}, and with an eye to a fair represen- 
tation of the leading denominations and theological institutions of the 
country, within the necessary limits of convenience for united work. 
Experience and public sentiment, as far as expressed, have approved 
the choice. 

^ There never was a more faithful and harmonious body of compe- 
tent scholars engaged in a more important work on the American Con- 
tinent. Representatives of half a dozen different denominations — 
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Method- 
ists, Reformed, also one Unitarian, one Friend, and one Lutheran — 
have met for eight years, and are still meeting every month, at great 
personal inconvenience and without prospect of reward, discussing 
innumerable differences of text and rendering. Their simple purpose 
was to give to the people the nearest equivalent in idiomatic English 
for the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, on the basis of the idiom and 
vocabulary of the Authorized Version. Christian courtesy, kindness, 
and genuine catholicity of spirit have characterizedT all their pro- 
ceedings. They will ever look back upon these monthly meetings in 
the Bible House with unmingled satisfaction and thanks to God who 



94 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

gave ihem health and grace to go through such a difficult and labori- 
ous task with unbroken and ever-deepening friendship. After con- 
concluding their work (Oct. 22, 1880) the members of the New 
Testament Company parted almost in tears with mingled feelings of 
joy and sadness. Four of their number (the Rev. Drs. Horatio B. 
Hackett, Henry B. Smith, Charles Hodge, and Professor James 
Hadley) had died before, one (the Rev. Dr. Washburn) died soon 
after the completion, others are near the end of their earthly labors, 
but all hope to meet again where faith will be lost in vision, and where 
love and harmony will reign for ever. 

The funds for the necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room- 
rent, books, and clerical aid were cheerfully contributed by liberal 
donors, who will receive in return a handsome memorial copy of the 
first and best University edition of the Revised New Testament as 
soon as issued. 

IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE. 

The Constitution of the American Committee was first submitted in 
draft by its President to several leading members of the English Com- 
mittee, in the summer of 187 1, and adopted, with some modifications, 
at the meeting for organization on December 7th, 1871. It is as 
follows : 

"I. The American Committee, invited by the British Committee 
engaged in the revision of the Authorized English Version of the 
• Holy Scriptures to co-operate with them, shall be composed of bibli- 
cal scholars and divines in the United States. 

" n. This Committee shall have the power to elect its officers, to 
add to its number, and to fill its own vacancies. 

'* ni. The officers shall consist of a President, a Corresponding 
Secretary, and a Treasurer. The President shall conduct the official 
correspondence with the British revisers. The Secretary shall con- 
duct the home correspondence. 

" IV. New members of the Committee and corresponding members 
must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by 
ballot. 

"V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British 
Companies on the basis of the principles and rules of revision adopted 
bv the British Committee. 

" VI. The American Committee shall consist of two Companies, the 
one for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 95 

he other for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testa- 
ment. 

" VII. Each Company shall elect its own Chairman and Recording 
Secretary. 

"VIII. The British Companies will submit to the American Com- 
panies, from time to time, such portions of their work as have passed 
the first revision, and the American Companies will transmit their 
criticisms and suggestions to the British Companies before the second 
revision. 

" IX. A joint meeting of the American and British Companies shall 
be held, if possible, in London, before final action. 

" X. The American Committee to pay their own expenses, and to 
have the ownership and control of the copyright of the Revised Ver- 
sion in the United States of America." 

The last article, as far as it refers to the publication of the revision, 
was abandoned, by the American Committee in the course of nego- 
tiations with the British Universities, for sufficient reasons, as will be 
shown below. 

V. THE RELATION OF THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COMMITTEES, 

The Americans, as maybe inferred from the preceding Constitution, 
accepted the invitation and entered upon the work with a clear under- 
standing that they were to be fellow-revisers with equal rights and re- 
sponsibilities as the members of the English Committee appointed 
under the rule of Convocation. No respectable scholars could have 
been found to bestow ten years' labor on any other terms ; nor would 
the American churches, representing a larger population than that of 
England, ever accept a revision of their Bible in which they had no 
positive share and influence. The friends of revision contributed 
towards the expenses of the work expecting it to be a joint work of 
both Committees. The whole American community had the same 
understanding of the relation of the two Committees, and this alone 
accounts for the enormous demand of the Revised New Testament 
in the country, which has no parallel in the history of the book trade.* 

The natural mode of exercising the full right of membership is by 

* We learn from the New York agent of the Oxford University Press that he 
has good reason to expect orders for 200, oco copies of the Oxford editions of the 
revised New Testament, before the date of publication (May 17), notwithstanding 
the fact that half a dozen cheap reprints have already been announced all over the 
country. 






96 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

I 

voting on the changes to be adopted. But absent members cannot 
vote, and the intervening ocean made it impossible for the two Com- 
mittees to meet jointly. The 9th Article of the American Constitution 
contemplates " a joint meeting" to be held in London before final 
action, " if possible." But such a meeting was found impracticable, 
and is superseded by another and better arrangement. 

Here, then, was a difficult)', which made itself felt at an early stage of 
the work. It led to confidential negotiations which we need not follow. 
They resulted at last in an agreement with the English Committee and 
the Delegates and Syndics of the University Presses of Oxford and 
Cambridge, as the authorized publishers of the new Revision. This 
agreement, dated Aug. 3, 1877, seems upon the whole to be the best 
compromise that could be made in justice to all the parties concerned. 
It is in substance as follows : 

The English Revisers promise to send confidentially their revision 
in its various stages to the American Revisers, to take all the 
American suggestions into special consideration before the conclusion 
of their labors, to furnish them before publication with copies of the 
revision in its final form, and to allow them, to present, in an Appen- 
dix to the Revised Scriptures, all the remaining differences of reading 
and rendering of importance, which the English Committee should 
decline to adopt ; while, on the other hand, the American Revisers 
pledge themselves to give their moral support to the authorized edi- 
tions of the University Presses, with a view to their freest circulation 
within the United States, and not to issue a rival edition for a term of 
fourteen years. 

By this arrangement the Americans secured the full recognition of 
their rights as fellow-revisers. In a joint meeting in London the 
changes proposed in the Appendix would probably all be voted down, 
for the English Committee is much more numerous, and knows best 
what public opinion and taste in England require and can bear. On 
the other hand, the Americans may claim the same advantage as re- 
gards the views of their countrymen. In consideration of this hon- 
orable concession, they were quite willing to forego any other ad- 
vantage. 

The American Committee at one time, as the last article in the 
Constitution shows, considered the expediency of securing a copyright 
for the purpose of protecting the purity and integrity of the text 
against irresponsible reprints, and also as a means to defray the nec- 
essary expenses of the work, hoping to make an arrangement with an 



OF THE ENGLISPI NEW TESTAMENT. 97 

American publisher similar to that of the English Committee with the 
University Presses, instead of relying on voluntary contributions of 
friends. Beyond this they had no interest in a copyright, and never 
thought for a moment of using it for their own benefit. But after 
careful discussion and reflection it was deemed best to abandon the 
plan of legal protection, even for the Appendix (which is exclusively 
their own literary property), and to give the revised Scriptures free to 
the American public. The University Presses which are the author- 
ized publishers of King James' Version in Great Britain, have the best 
possible facilities of publication, and will issue the revised New Testa- 
ment at once, with the greatest typographical accuracy, in half a dozen 
different sizes, and at prices (from sixteen dollars down to fifteen 
cents) to suit all purchasers. They have, moreover, a strong claim 
on the public patronage, in view of their large outlay not only for 
printing and publishing, but also for the payment of the expenses 
(^100,000) of the British Committee, which they assumed at a time 
when the success of the enterprise was altogether uncertain. The 
American Revisers having paid their own expenses from voluntary 
contributions, are under no obligation to any publishing firm. 

The new version, then, stands precisely on the same footing with the 
old version as to copyright : it is protected by law in England, it is 
free in America. 

The American Revisers have already been blamed in some quarters 
for abandoning their undoubted right to issue an authorized Ameri- 
can edition, and to protect their own work against inevitable piracy 
and mutilation. But would they not be still more blamed if they 
had given any publisher a monopoly over all the rest ? And 
what would the Revisers do with such a golden elephant as the copy 
money for a book of which millions will be sold within a few years ? 
It would be sufficient to start a new Bible Society ; but one national 
Bible Society is enough for America. 

The people at large have certainly no reason to complain. They 
will reap the benefit from the plan adopted, which is undoubtedly the 
best for the widest and cheapest possible circulation of the Revised 
Scriptures throughout America and the world. 

Several American reprints have been already extensively an- 
nounced, and will no doubt likewise have a very large circulation. 
We learn that even daily papers intend to publish the Revised New 
Testament in their Sunday issues at four or five cents. There will be 
more reading and comparative study of the Bible within the next few 
years than there has ever been in the history of Christianity. The 
publication of the revised New Testament will be a republication of 



98 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

the Gospel. This result alone will abundantly compensate for all 
the time and labor spent upon the Revision. 



VI. THE AMERICAN PART IN THE JOINT WORK. 

The Revised New Testament, as authoritatively printed and pub- 
lished by the two English University Presses, is the joint work of 
both Committees. The English Revisers began a year earlier, and the 
American Revisers worked on the basis of the first English revision, 
but they had to go precisely through the same process of textual crit- 
icism and exegesis, to examine the same authorities, ancient and mod- 
ern, and to discuss the same differences of rendering. They have 
spent probably the same amount of time and labor since they began to 
co-operate. They transmitted to England only the points of differ- 
ence and suggestions of new changes. These were printed from time 
to time for the exclusive use of the Revisers, and would make alto- 
gether an octavo volume of about four hundred pages. Occasionally 
an elaborate essay was included in justification of a particular point, 
as the difference of reading in John i : i8 [jJLOvoy^vqz 5£o5, or vios) ; 
on Acts 20 : 28 {^eov, or nvpiov) ; on Tit. 2:13, and 2 Pet. 1:1. 
But in the great majority of cases the result only was stated. 

In order to form a just estimate of the American share of the work, 
and the degree of harmony of the two Committees, it is necessary to 
compare those parts which were done independently. For such an 
estimate we have the materials on hand. 

When the communication between the two Committees was inter- 
rupted for a few months in 1877, the American Committee took up 
the first revision of a portion of Isaiah and of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and finished them before the first English revision of the 
same books was received. 

On a comparison it was found that in about one half of the changes 
the two Committees had arrived at the same conclusion. The result 
as to the Epistle to the Hebrews is more particularly stated in the fol- 
lowing letter from the venerable Bishop Lee, D.D., LL.D., a member 
of the New Testament Company : 

"Wilmington, Del., April 25, 1881. 
*' My Dear Sir : My examination of the independent revisions of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews by the English and the American Companies, 
resulted in the estimate that out of 913 changes made by the Ameri- 
can Company, 476 were exactly coincident with those of the English. 
There were others substantially the same, but not precisely identical. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 99 

" The variations were largely in punctuation and minor points. 
"I do not claim, of course, perfect accuracy, but I think this 
statement is not far from the truth. 

"My estimate of the American suggestions adopted is, in 

The Gospels 318 

Acts 186 

Epistles and Revelation 400 

904 

"In the calculation I aimed to count each new suggestion but 
once, although in many cases it was often repeated — as food for meat^ 
hades for hell, tomb for sepulchre, etc. I omitted returns to the 
Authorized Version, differences of punctuation, except in a few im- 
portant instances, and metrical arrangements, presuming that these 
would have been done by the British company even without our 
calling their attention to them. 

"If you wish for more particular information upon any of these 
points, I shall be happy to supply it as far as I can. 

* * Very truly yours, 

" Alfred Lee." 

Again, in the year 1880, the American Old Testament Company 
went through the first revision of the Book of Job, and printed it (for 
private use) before the first English revision of the same book was re- 
ceived. Copies were transmitted by the President to the Secretary 
of the British Old Testament Company, February 4th, i88r, with the 
remark : "I send you to-day by European express twenty-seven 
copies of the American revision of Job, for distribution among the 
members of your Company. The revision was completed before your 
revision came to hand. Hence it has been printed in full, which will 
give you a better idea of the character of cur work and the measure, of 
its agreement with yours." 

A careful comparison was made between the English and the 
American revision of Job by the Rev. Professor Mead, of Andover, 
Mass., a member of the Old Testament Company, and the result is 
stated in the following letter addressed to the Chairman of the Old 
Testament Company : 

^ "Andover, Feb. 5, 1881. 

" My DEAR Prof. Green : . . . You may be in;terested in knowing 
the result of my collation of the two revisions of Job. Of course it is 
impossible to be very exact, it being often difficult to determine how 



100 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

to designate a change, or to decide how far to analyze a change — i.e.^ 
whether to call it one, two, or three, when a whole clause is 
transformed. In general 1 have adopted the plan of being minute in 
the matter, though doubtless not consistent with myself either in this 
or in any other respect. Still the general proportion of things is 
probably indicated with tolerable exactness. The result is as follows : 

Whole number of changes made by the American Revisers 1781 

Whole number of changes made by the English Revisers 1004 

Changes identical in both 45^ 

Changes substantially the same in both 134 

Passages differently changed by both 289 

Changes in A. R. where there are none in E. R 913 

Changes in E. R. where there are none in A. R 236 

American readings found in English margin 53 

English readings found in American margin 12 



{( 



The general result is that in about half the cases we coincide. 
More exactly : the identical changes form about 45I- per cent of the 
changes made by the English. Adding the cases of substantial coin- 
cidence, we have made 58! per cent of the changes which they have 
made. In multitudes of other cases there would be a ready acquies- 
cence on our part in their changes — many of them having reference 
to very small matters, while many of ours also are of a similar sort. 

*' Yours truly, 

''CM. Mead.'* 

On the basis of these facts it may be said that the two Committees, 
if they had acted independently, would have produced substantially 
the same work ; about one half of all the changes, and these the most 
important, being identical, and the other half being mostly of such a 
nature, that they would have been readily acquiesced in by the other 
party. 

Both Committees have, therefore, a perfect right to look upon the 
Revision as their own work. The English Committee, however, has a 
just claim to priority and a primacy of honor. The mother took the 
lead, the daughter followed. The Americans gave to the vast major- 
ity of the English changes their hearty approval, and the whole weight 
of their independent research and judgment. On the other hand, a 
large number of the remaining changes which they regarded as most 
important, have been, after due deliberation, accepted by the English, 
so that with a few exceptions the points of difference set forth in the 
Appendix are of comparatively little interest and importance. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. lOI 

As illustrations of these concessions made in the progress of the 
work, Bishop Lee furnishes me with the following partial list of the 
more important American suggestions on the Gospels, which have been 
adopted by the English Committee in the second revision. The 
same changes in the parallel passages are not counted. 

VII. SOME AMERICAN SUGGESTIONS ADOPTED. 

Matthew i, i. The genealogy, put in margin. 
12. removal, put in margin. 

22. For 0/ the Lord dy the prophet : by, through ; and so ii. 15. 
ii. 23. shall : should be called, 
iii. 3. prepare ye : make ye ready, and metrical arrangement. 

4. meat : food ; and so in many places 
iv. 24. lunatic : epileptic ; and so elsewhere. 
V. 15. candle, candlestick : lamp, stand ; and so in Luke xi. 33. 

25. lest : lest haply. 
vi. Several paragraphs. 

16. sour : sad. 

19. dig through, in margin. 

26. much better : of much more value. 

vii. 9. of whom if his son shall ask bread : who, if his son shall ask him 
for a loaf, 
viii. 6. Gr. with a word, in margin. 

18. multitude : great multitudes ; other shore : other side ; and so 
^passim. 
ix. 8 authority, in margin. 

31. country : land. 
X. 21. and father shall deliver up child '. and the father his child ; and so 
Mark 13:12 ; or put them to death, in margin ; do., and so Mark 
13 : 12. 
xi. 5. the gospel : good tidings ; and in Luke 7 : 22. 
7. to look upon : behold ; and Luke. 
10. order : prepare. 
17. Gr. beat the breast, in margin. 
23. hell : hades ; and so passivi. 
xiii. I. the whole : all the multitude ; shore : beach. 
12. taken : taken away. 
15. Dele should. 
33. Margin is ; denotes. 
44. for joy thereof : in his joy. 
xiv. 19. sit down : recline, adopted in margin. 

26. in their fear : for fear, 
xvi. 9. Dele do ye. 
xvii. 4. or booths, in margin, 
xviii. 3. be converted : turn. 

22. seventy times and seven, put in margin, and seventy times seven, 
in text. 



I02 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

xix. 5. for this : for this cause. 

8. the hardness of your hearts : your hardness of heart ; and so in 
Mark 10 : 5. 
XX. 14. it pleaseth me : it is my will. 
xxi. 10. moved : stirred. 

24. thing : question ; marg., Gr. word. 
36. likewise : in like manner. 

42. this was the Lord's doing : this was from ihe Lord ; so in Mark 

12 : II. 
xxii. 13. ministers : proposed, attendants ; aaopted, servants. 
26. the seven : the seventh. 

43. spirit : Spirit, 
xxiii. 8. master : teacher. 

xxiv. 8. pains : suggested, pangs ; adopted, travail. 

xxvi. 16. betray : deliver. 

24. for him if that man had not been born : for that man if he had not 

been born. 
4Q. kissed him much, in margin. 

50. Is it this for which thou art come ? Do that for which, etc. 
58. begged : asked ; and so elsewhere, 
xxvi. 67. guilty : worthy of death. 

xxvii. 61. there was there Mary Magdalene : and Mary Magdalene was there, 
xxvii. 24. was made : was arising. 

28. Some anc. auth. read clothed, margin. 

44. Cast the same in his teeth : Cast upon him the same reproach, 
xxviii. It. were done : were come to pass. 

In Matthew 126 new suggestions adopted, not including returns to Authorized 
Version. New paragraphs counted. 

Mark i. 43. solemnly : suggested, sternly, put in margin ; and strictly, in text, 
ii. 3. carried : borne, 
iii. 8. all the things : what great things, 
iv. 30. place it : set it forth. 

39, arose : awoke. 
V. 3. among : in the tombs. , 

36. Be not afraid : fear not. 
vi. 2. the many : de/e the. 
24. should : shall I ask. 
54. they : t/ie people. 
vii. 6, 7. Metrically arranged. 

ix. 3. such that no fuller . . , can so whiten them : so as no fuller 

can whiten. 
8. when they had looked : looking, 
ix. 18. Substitute margin for text ; dasheth him down for rendeth him. 
xii. 10. so much as this : even this, 
xiii. 20. should : would. 
35. either : whether. 
xiv. 8. to : for the burying. 

38. Add margin, Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not. 



IV. 


41. 


vi. 


35- 


'iii. 


6 




14. 


ix. 


7. 




58. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. IO3 

55. all the council : the whole council. 
XV. 37. when he had uttered . . . gave up : uttered a loud voice, and 
gave up. 

Forty-six new suggestions in Mark adopted. 

Luke ii. 2. Quirinus : Quirinius. 
g. stood over : stood by. 
19. sayings : add margin, Or things. 
35. pierce : pierce through. 

49. about my Father's business, restored in margin, 
iii. 8. your repentance : put in margin, 
forbade : suffered them not. 

Margin, some anc. auth. read, despairing of no man. 
fell down : fell. 

as they go : as they go on their way. 
of : by, three times. 

Margin, roosting places : lodging places. 
X. I. seventy and two : dele and two in text, and put it in margin. 
41. careful : anxious, 
xii. II. unto : before. 

46. faithless : unfaithful, 
xiii. 4. debtors : offenders ; margin, Gr. debtors. 
xiv. I. chief Pharisees : rulers of the Pharisees. 

23. compel : constrain. 
XV. 7. just : righteous, 
xvi. 2. mayest be : canst be. 

3. I cannot dig : I have not strength to dig. 
14. mocked : scoffed at. 
xvii. 2. profitable : gain ', adopted, well, 
xviii. 9. the rest : all others. 
XX. 16. God forbid : far be it, adopted in margin, Gr. be it not so. 
xxi. 16. waves : swelling waves ; adopted, billows. 
xxiii. I. number : multitude ; adopted, company. 
12. together : with each other. 
35. derided : scoffed at. 

55, sepulchre: tomb, and elsewhere, ior fivrinEiov 
xxiv. 22. made us astonished : amazed us. 

New suggestions in Luke adopted, 62, not including returns to Authorized 
Version or metrical arrangements. 

John i. 5. overcame : apprehended, from margin. 

6. there was : there appeared ; adopted, came. 

12. power : right, from margin. 

15. spake : said. 

33. Holy Ghost : Holy Spirit. 

18. God only begotten. Transpose text and margin. 
42. ( ) after Cephas. 

ii. 10. Largely : freely. /■ 

19, etc. temple : margin, sanctuary. 



104 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

iv. 22. of the Jews : from the Jews. 

25. tell : declare. 

34. perfect : accomplish. 
vi. I. over : to the other side of. 

23. in [ ]. 

39. ail which : all that which. 

66. after this : upon this, 
vii. 16. doctrine : teaching. 

22. Add margin, Ye all marvel because of this. 

52. Transpose margin and text, 
viii. 42. came out : came forth, 
xi. 12. he shall be saved : he will recover. 

20. Mary sat still : still sat. 

50. for to : that they might, 
xii. 28. from : out of heaven. 
XV. 3. even now : already. 

5. Transpose text and margin, apart from. 
xvi. 8. the world of sin : in respect of sin. 
xviii. 12. Add margin, Or military tribune, Gr. Chiliarch. 

18. stood : were standing. 

20. whether : where ; resort : come together. 
xix. 12. whosoever : every one that. 

30. the ghost : his spirit. 

42. Change of arrangement. 
XX. 17. Add margin. Take not hold on me. 

New suggestions adopted in John, 84, not including raturns to Authorized Ver- 
sion, or substitutions of who or that for which. 

Matthew 126 

Mark 46 

Luke 62 

John 84 

318 

Bishop Lee wishes it to be understood that this list of American changes adopt- 
ed is not complete. 



VIII. THE POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 

The changes in which the two Committees have agreed, and v/hich 
distinguish the Revised English Testament from the Authorized Ver- 
sion, may be classified as follows : 

I. The text. The oldest and purest attainable text of the uncial 
manuscripts is substituted for the received text of later cursive manu- 
scripts. This includes omissions (with margin, as in Matt. 6 : 13 ; 
John 5:4; Acts 8 : 37 ; without margin, as in i John 5 : 7, 8)^ doubt- 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. I05 

ful passages retained (as Mark 16 : 9-20 ; John 7 : 53-8 : 11), and 
changes (as in Matt. 19 : 17 ; Mark 3 : 29 ; Acts 18 : 5 ; Rom. 5:1; 
I Tim. 3 : 16 ; Rev. 17:8, and in a great many other passages). 

2. Errors of typography, grammar, and translation are corrected. 
Examples : Matt. 10 : 4 ; 14 : 8 ; 15 : 27 ; 28 : 19 ; Luke 3 : 23 ; 
John 10 : 16 ; Acts 2 : 3, 47 ; 3 : 19, 20 ; 26 : 28 ; Rom. 3 : 25 ; i Cor. 
4:4; Gal. 4 : 13 ; i Tim. 6:5; Heb. 11 : 13 ; i Pet. 3:21. 

3. Inaccuracies in the rendering of the article, the moods and 
tenses, the prepositions, the particles, etc., are rectified. 

4. Artificial distinctions caused by needless variations in rendering 
the same word and name are removed. 

5. Real distinctions of the original text, which are obliterated by 
rendering two or more distinct terms in the same way, are restored. 

6. Misleading and obsolete archaisms are replaced by intelligible 
words. 

7. The words supplied in italics are revised and greatly reduced in 
number. 

8. Sectional arrangement is combined with the arbitrary capitular 
and versicular division, which is put in the margin. 

9. Poetical quotations from the Old Testament are arranged as 
poetry. 

10. Alternate readings, as well as renderings, are given in the out- 
side margin. 

These improvements occur on every page, and almost in every verse, 
but the majority of readers and hearers will scarcely observe them, 
and few of them alter the sense very materially. They may be com- 
pared in this respect to the 150,000 variations of the Greek Testa- 
ment. They do not change a single article of faith, nor a single pre- 
cept of duty. And yet in the Word of God every little thing is im- 
portant, and every effort to bring our English Bible nearer to the 
Greek and Hebrew original is thankworthy. 

In this vast mass of improvements, we may well say, in ninety-nine 
out of a hundred changes, the two Committees are agreed. This fact 
can scarcely be overestimated. It is true, a very large proportion, we 
may say, at least one half, of the changes had become common prop- 
erty among biblical scholars before the revision was undertaken. 
They had been anticipated by textual critics, as Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, Tregelles (and the advance sheets of Westcott and Hort), by the 
revised translations of Alford, Noyes, Davidson, ^'eizsacker, F. W. 
Gotch, Benj. Davies, G. A. Jacob and Sam. G. Green, etc., and by 
the Commentaries of De Wette, Meyer, Lange (the American edition. 



I06 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

which contains a revision of the A. V.), Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, 
and many others.* 

But the value of the Anglo-American Revision is that after the most 
careful examination it selects and authorizes the best of these modern 
improvements, together with many new ones, for the public benefit. 
It harvests the mature fruits of the critical and . exegetical re- 
searches of whole generations. It divests the changes of per- 
sonal merits and demerits, and gives to them a churchly and cath- 
olic character. It is a compromise : every member had to sacrifice 
some of his preferences to the views of the majority ; but for this very 
reason it is more likely to prove generally acceptable to the churches. 

IX. THE AMERICAN APPENDIX. 

The American Appendix is short, and contains only those render- 
ings which the English Company, in its final action, was unwilling to 
accept, and which the American Committee deemed of sufficient 

* The Rev. Dr. Riddle, a member of the New Testament Company, and a 
contributor to the American edition of Lange's Commentary, after a careful 
comparison, has arrived at the conclusion that on an average more than one half 
(from 50 to 75 per cent) of the changes in the English Revision were anticipated in 
that Commentary, which was nearly completed (in the New Testament part) be- 
fore the revision began. The percentage increased as the Commentary went 
on. It is greatest in the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and 
the minor Pauline Epistles. We give here a few specimens of emendations which, 
accordmg to Dr. Riddle, were adopted in the first English revision, and anticipa- 
ted in the American edition of Lange. The chapters were selected at random, 
but fairly represent the average. 

Commentary on Matthev/ (published 1864) : 

Chap. XXV., 62 changes by Revisers, 30 anticipated in Lange. 

Commentary on John (published 1871) : 

Chap. VII., 85 changes by Revisers, 60 " " 

" XL, III " " 79 

Commentary on Ephesians (published 1S70) : 

42 changes by Revisers, 35 " " 

37 " 
36 

43 " 

48 

30 " 

« 

314 229 

In Romans (published 1869), and Galatians (published 1870) the correspondence 
is at times even greater. 



Chap. L, 


42 


" 11.. 


55 


" IIL, 


60 


" IV., 


55 


" v., 


64 


" VL, 


38 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 10/ 

importance to be recorded for future use. It is provided for by the 
fourth article of the agreement of Aug. 3, 1877, which is as fol- 
lows : 

*' (4.) If any differences shall still remain, the American Committee will yield 
its preferences for the sake of harmony ; provided that such differences of read- 
ing and rendering as the American Committee may represent to the English 
Companies to be of special importance, be distinctly stated either in the Preface 
to the Revised Version, or in an Appendix to the volume, during a term of four- 
teen years from the date of publication, unless the American Churches shall 
so'oner pronounce a deliberate opinion upon the Revised Version with the view of 
its being taken for public use. " 

The Appendix was originally much larger, but has been gradually 
reduced, by honorable and liberal concessions of both parties. The 
best part of the American labor is incorporated in the book, and 
there it will remain, whatever may become of the Appendix. 

The remaining differences are still more reduced when we consider 
that the English Revisers have recognized on the margin many of 
the American changes. 

The American renderings, if judged by the Greek text, may be 
traced chiefly to greater fidelity and consistency. The Revision must 
be faithful first to the original Scriptures, and next to the idiom and 
vocabulary of the Authorized Version. Sometimes these two kinds of 
loyalty come, into conflict. In unimportant or doubtful cases the 
English Revisers allowed their regard for the old version and for Eng- 
lish usage to overrule their regard for the Greek text, and felt bound 
to do so by the Canterbury rules. This is very natural, if we remem- 
ber that the old version is largely incorporated into the liturgical and 
devotional literature, and that the Book of Common Prayer is a 
greater power in England than in the United States. The American 
editions of the Prayer-Book depart from the English editions in some 
of the disputed particulars of language, for instance in the change of 
*' which" to " who" in the Lord's Prayer. 

The American Appendix then represents closer adherence to the 
Greek, and greater freedom from old English usage. 



X. POINTS OF VARIATION. 

I have no sp^ce, nor is it necessary to explain in detail the Ameri- 
can Appendix. But I shall give the reasons for^^e most important 
changes which cover a number of passages. 



Io8 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 



I. THE TITLES AND HEADINGS OF BOOKS. 

I. Omit the word " Saint" from the title of the Gospels and the Revelation of 
John, the word " the Apostle" from the title of the Pauline Epistles, and " Paul 
the Apostle" from the Epistle to the Hebrews, the word "General" from the 
title of the Epistles of James, Peter, i John, and Jude. 

The reasons for these omissions are as follows : 

(a.) There is no authority for the title " Saint" in the old Greek 
MSB., which read simply, " According to Matthew" [Kara Mar- 
B-aiov)^ or " Gospel according to Matthew." {EvayyaXiov Kara 
M.), or in later Mss., " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew," etc. 

(<^.) The technical ecclesiastical use of "Saint," as one of a spir- 
itual nobility distinct from ordinary Christians, is not biblical, but 
dates from a later age. In the New Testament the term is applied to 
all believers, as being separated from the world, consecrated to God 
and destined for holiness. See Rom. 1:7; 12:13; 16:15; i Pet. 
2:9; Acts 9 : 13, 32, 41 ; Jude, ver. 3. The Apostles and their 
disciples are simply called by their names. 

(c.) The Authorized Version is inconsistent in prefixing the title 
* ' Saint' ' to the Gospels and to Revelation, but omitting it in the Acts and 
Epistles, as if James, Peter, and Paul were not saints as well as Mat- 
thew, Mark, and Luke, or as if the St. John of the Gospel and of the 
Revelation were not the same as the John of the Epistles. The inconsis- 
tency is, of course, an inadvertency. The Bishops' Bible retained the 
title *' Saint" from the Vulgate in twenty-six books of the New Tes- 
tament ; the Geneva Bible of 1560 omitted it in all ; the first edition 
of the Authorized Version of 161 1 omitted it in all but five. 

{d.) The title "Apostle" is likewise wanting in the oldest Greek 
MSS., which read simply, " To the Romans" {Trpos 'PcDjuaiovi), etc., 
although some insert " of Paul," or "of the Apostle Paul," or "of 
the holy Apostle Paul." Moreover, the title " Apostle" belongs to 
Peter and John as well as to Paul, and should be given to all or none. 

(e.) The present title of the Epistle to the Hebrews (" the Epistle 
of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews") prejudges the open question of 
the authorship of this anonymous Epistle. The best mss. read 
simply, " The Epistle to the Hebrews" (7 npoi'Eftpaiovi 'eniff- 
roXr). 

(/.) The title " General" (Catholic) of the Epistles of James, Peter, 
John, and Jude is likewise of later date, and omitted by critical edit- 
ors. It is also misleading, and applies no more to those Epistles 
than to the Ephesians and the Hebrews, which have an encyclical 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. IO9 

character ; while the cecond and third Epistles of John are addressed 
to an individual. 

An objection will be made to this part of the Appendix by those 
who deem it reverent to retain the time-honored *' Saint" in connec- 
tion with the Evangelists and Apostles. But then, let us at least be 
consistent, and use it uniformly or drop it altogether. The sacred 
writers must be our standard of reverence, and they speak of each 
other simply as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. The highest 
order of merit and distinction needs no epithet of honor. 

2. ARCHAIC FORMS. 



Substitute modern forms of speech for the following archaisms — viz., " who" or 
"that" for "which" when used of persons; ''are" for "be" in the present 
indicative ; " know," " knew," for " wot," " wist" ; " drag" or " drag away" 
for "hale." 

There is a difference between misleading and innocent archaisms. 
The British Committee acts on the principle of removing the former 
and retaining the latter ; the American Comm.ittee removes the latter 
also, in those cases where they are either unintelligible or offend 
against the present rules of grammar. 

The Revision has justly changed such words and phrases as "to 
prevent" for " precede" (i Thess. 4 : 15 ; Matt. 17 : 25, " spake 
first") ; "to let" for " to hinder" (Rom. i : 13 ; 2 Thess. 2:7); 
** to fetch a compass" for " to make a circuit," or "to go round" 
(Acts 28 : 13) ; " conversation" for " conduct," or " manner of 
life" (Gal. i : 13 ; Eph. 4 : 22, etc.) ; " atonement" for " reconcili- 
ation" (Rom. 5:12); " ambassage" for " embassy" (Luke 14 : 32); 
"carriages" for "baggage" (Acts 21:15); "damnation" for 
" condemnation," or " judgment" (Rom. 13 : 2 ; i Cor. 11 : 29) ; 
"coast" for "border," or "region"; " by-and-by" for "imme- 
diately" ; " instantly" for " urgently," and many others. 

Why, then, not go a little further? "To hale," in the sense " to 
drag forcibly, " is certainly obsolete or misleading, at least in America, 
but has been retained in Luke 12 : 58 ; Acts 8:3. " Wot" for 
"know," and "wist" for "knew" (Mark 14 40), and "to wit" 
for " to know," are no longer in use, and the last phrase has been 
abandoned by the Revision (in 2 Cor. 8 : i) for " We make known to 
you" (instead of " We do you to wit"). 

The cases of "which" for "who," when used of persons, and 
" be" for " are" in the present indicative, are verjr frequent, and al- 
though quite harmless because not liable to misunderstanding, might 
as well have been consistently removed in all passages, as has been ac- 



no COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

tually done in a great many. Why should we perpetuate a conflict be- 
tween the language of the school and the language of the Church ? 
Why censure a schoolboy for following the Bible ? We lose no word 
by the change, since " which" in its proper place, for the neuter gender 
and for the interrogative, is retained, and is just as good new English 
as " who" is good old English. 

But these are matters of national taste. I heard Mr. Gladstone 
and Mr. Bright say that they would rather pray ** Our Father which 
art in heaven," than " «//z^ art in heaven." So the strict German 
Lutherans always address God, not in the more correct modern style, 
" Unser Vater' (although Luther so translated the Lord's Prayer in 
Matt. 6 : 9), but in the old-fashioned and now ungrammatical form, 
" Vatcr unser'' which Luther retained in his Catechism, in accord- 
ance with the Latin " Fater nosterj''' 

3. RENDERING OF TERMS DENOTING COINS. 

Let aacdpicyv (Matt. 10 : 2g ; Luke 12 : 6) be translated " penny," and Srjvupiov 
" shilling," except in Matt. 22 : ig ; Mark 12 : 15 ; Luke 20 : 24, where the name 
of the coin, ** a denarius," should be given. 

The rendering of coins in our English Version is very ob- 
jectionable, and makes a false impression upon the popular reader. 
** Mite" may be retained for AfTrroV, (the eighth part of ah ccGGa- 
piov^ or as^ half a quadraiis^ or about one fifth of one cent), and " far- 
thing" for Kod pavrrji {^quadrans^ the fourth part of an as^ equivalent 
to two mites, ^vo Xeitroc)^ as in Mark 12 : 42, " a poor widow cast in 
two mites which make a farthing." But the more valuable coins are 
mischievously perverted and belittled. Bishop Lightfoot, one of the 
English Revisers, has shown this so well that we can do no better 
than quote him in full justification of the American view. He says*: 

" Why aaaapwv^ the late Greek diminutive used for the as^ 
of which, therefore, the ko8 pavrr}c, is a fourth part, should still 
be translated a fa7'thing (which elsewhere represents ko6 pavrrjs) 
rather than /'<?7Z77y, it is difficult to see (Matt. 10 : 29 ; Luke 12 : 6). 
And as we advance in the scale, the disproportion betv/een the 
value of the original and the English substitute increases. Thus the 
denarius, a silver piece of the value originally of ten and afterward of 
sixteen ases, is always rendered a peniiy. Its absolute value, as so 
much weight in metal, is as nearly as possible the same as the French 
franc. Its relative value as a purchasing power, in an age and a 

* In his excellent book, " A Fresh Revision of the English 'New Testament," 
London, 1871, Am. ed. (Harpers), 1873, pp. 141-143. 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. 



Ill 



country where provisions were much cheaper, was considerably more. 
Now it so happens that in ahnost every case where the word dijva- 
piov occurs in the New Testament it is connected with the idea of a 
liberal or large amount ; and yet in these passages the English render- 
ing names a sum which is absurdly small. Thus the Good Samaritan, 
whose generosity is intended to appear throughout, on leaving, takes 
out 'two pence,' and gives them to the innkeeper to supply the 
further wants of the wounded man. Thus, again, the owner of the 
vineyard, whose liberality is contrasted with the niggardly, envious 
spirit, the * evil eye ' of others, gives, as a day's wages, ' a penny ' 
to each man. It is unnecessary to ask what impression the mention 
of this sura will leave on the minds of an uneducated peasant or shop- 
keeper of the present day. Even at the time when our Version was 
made, and when wages were lower, it must have seemed wholly inad- 
equate. The inadequacy again appears, though not so prominently, 
in ' the two hundred pence,' the sum named as insufficient to supply 
bread to the five thousand (Mark 6:37; John 6 : 7), and similaily in 
other cases (e.g.^ Mark 14 : 5 ; John 12:5; Luke 7 : 41). Lastly, in 
the Book of the Revelation (6 : 6), the announcement, which in the 
original implies famine prices, is rendered in our English Version, 
* A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley 
for a penny.' The fact is that the word jofrzc?, here translated 
'measure,' falls below the amount of a quart, Vv'hile the word 
Srjvapiov^ here translated * a penny,' approaches toward the value 
of a shilling. To the English reader the words must convey the idea 
of enormous plenty." 

The judgment of the best English scholars is entirely in our favor. 
If the " penny," which occurs in no less than sixteen passages, was 
nevertheless retained (although with a correction in the margin), it must 
be traced partly to an over-conservative regard for popular usage, and 
partly to the difficulty of finding a precise idiomatic equivalent for the 
Greek Stjvdpiov (Latin denarius). Sometimes a little matter gives 
most trouble. This is an instance. The penny was discussed over 
and over again in both Committees. In the English Company at an 
early stage the Anglicized form " denary" was about to be adopted, 
when the late Dean Alford killed it by the humorous objection that 
" denary" might be mispronounced " deaner)'-, " and give rise to the 
jest that the Revisers sold a deanery for a penny. The precise render- 
ing would be ** eight pence," but this is no single coin. " Six pence" 
in this respect would do better, but falls short of^ie full value. Still 
less would Englishmen tolerate " sixteen cents," nor would Americans 
think of intruding their coins into the Bible. But they considered re- 



112 COMPANION TO THE REVISED VERSION 

peatedly the claims of " shilling," "franc," " silverling, " " drachma," 
denarius," *' denary," " denar." The Latin " denarius" would have 
been adopted throughout, if it were not for the passages where the word 
occurs in the plural (Mark 6:37; 14 : 5 ; Luke 7:41; 10 : 35 ; John 
6:7; 12:5); iox denarii sounds too much like Latin for an English 
Bible. They agreed at last upon "shilling, ' ' but would prefer any other 
of the proposed renderings to " penny." A shilling is not absolutely 
correct, but is a genuine English silver coin, and does not convey the 
wrong idea of a ridiculously small sum. There can be no doubt 
whatever that, it found in the old Version, it would have been retained 
by both CommiUees. 

4. MORE ACCURATE RENDERINGS. 

{a) Put into the text uniformly the marginal rendering " through" in place of 
" by," when it relates to prophecy — viz., in Malt. 2:5, 17, 23 ; 3 : 3 ; 4 : 14 ; 
8 : 17 ; 12 : 17 ; 13 : 35 ; 21 : 4 ; 24 : 15 ; 27 : 9 ; Luke 18 : 31 ; Acts 2 : 16 ; 28 : 25. 

This is important to indicate the difference of the primary and second- 
ary authorship of prophecy, which is given by the Holy Spirit through 
the prophet {pioc rov npocprjrov), 

{b) Let tlie word "testament" be everywhere changed to "covenant" (with- 
out an alternate in the margin), except in Heb. g : 15-17. 

It is well known that dia^rfurj in Hellenistic Greek means usually 
covenant (corresponding to the Hebrew berit/i)^ except, perhaps, in 
Heb. 9 : 15-17, and also in Gal. 3 : 15, but even in these passages the 
same meaning is preferred by many commentators. The translation 
" testament" in the English Version (Matt. 26 : 28, etc.), in accord- 
ance with the Vulgate, gave rise to the designation of the " Old and 
New Testament" (instead of " Covenant"), which is especially im- 
proper in the case of the Old Testament, The American Committee 
thought at first of proposing also a change of the title, but gave it up, 
as " Old and New Testament" have assumed a settled m.eaning in all 
translations of the Bible, and hardly could be changed. 

(r) Substitute " demon" or "demons" for "devil" or "devils," where the 
Greek has (5a//z6jv or fJoiuopiov, as in the phrases "to cast out devils," "to be 
possessed with a devil," " to have a devil." 

The Bible knows only of one devil, but of a great many evil spirits. 
The English Revision acknowledges the distinction in the margin, 
but not in the text, which will continue to mislead the reader not 
acquainted with Greek. 

The two Committees had a similar conflict about " hades" and 



OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. II3 



" hell." The Americans insisted from the start on the restoration of 
the important distinction between hades ^ i. e., the spirit-world or the 
realmof the dead, 2.-ndgehemta^ i.e.^ the state and place of torment, or 
hell — a distinction which is obliterated in King James' Version, so 
that the fearful word hell occurs twice as often in it as it does in the 
Greek Testament. The English Revisers, from conservative regard to 
old usage, opposed the insertion of " hades" and persistently retained 
'* hell " until they reached the Apocalypse, when the American sug- 
gestion was adopted. Habit is strong, but truth is stronger and will 
prevail at last. 

CONCLUSION. 

The Appendix is subject to the verdict of the American Christian 
community. If approved by public opinion, it will ultimately be incor- 
porated in the text of the American editions ; if not, it will still retain a 
certain literary and historical value. The American Bible Society, with 
w its present constitution, is confined to the circulation of the Authorized 
English Version, and cannot publish the Revision. But this consti- 
tution can be changed, and will be changed whenever the churches 
which support the Society adopt the Revision. Then will be the 
proper time to make the American Appendix practically available, if 
deemed wise and expedient. This will not be the issue of a rival Re- 
vision, but only an American recension of one and the same Revision ; 
and the changes will no more affect the unity of the Revision than the 
differences of English and American spelling now affect the unity of the 
English language. On the contrary, the essential unity will be all 
y the more apparent and effective for the variety in unessential details. 
Worshippers of the letter may take offence, but worshippers of the 
spirit of the Bible will rejoice. 

But whatever may be the ultimate fate of the American Appendix, it 
is of very little account as compared with the substantial agreement. 
It is a matter of wonder and congratulation that two Committees, di- 
vided by the ocean and representing two independent and high- 
minded nations sensitive of their honor, should, after several years of 
unbroken and conscientious labor, have arrived at such a substantial 
harmony in the translation of their most sacred book, which is recog- 
nized by both as their infallible guide in all matters of Christian faith 
and duty. 

The Anglo-American Revision is the noblest monument of Christian 
union and co-operation in this nineteenth century, p- 

And herein is the finger of Providence, and the best guarantee of 
success. 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 





Matthew. 




Matthew {conttnueS). 






PAGE 


PAGE 


j. 


I 


• '5 


xxiv. 40. 41 .. 


57 


ii. 


I 


■ 64 


XXV. 3 






II 




2 


- 55 


6 






.. 16,31.56 




4 


- 53 


27 






.. 61 




15 


■ 55 


46 . 






.. 78 




17 


. 63 


xxvi. 15 






.. 46 


iii. 


14 


. S6 


25 






.. 83 




17 


• 13 


26 






- • 33 


iv. 


I 


• 73 


41 






..80 




6 


. 80 


.. 49 






• •• 83 




19 


. 80 


xxvii. 3 






.. 70 


V. 


4 


• 77 


9 






• • 63 




8,9 


70 


45 






. ... 78 




22 


• 31 


... 57 






•• 73 




29 


. 6t 


xxviii. 19 






••59 




40 


• 71 


19—20 






••73 




48 


• 57 




vi. 


13 


• 37 


Mark. 




34 


. 62 


i. 2 


..12 


vii. 


13 


- 58 


II 




13 


viii. 


5 


• 77 


17 




.. 80 




6 


. 69 


27 




..30 




20 


• 54 


lii. 5 




48 ■ 




33 


• 13 


18 




45 


X. 


4 


• 45 


iv. 29 




46 




14 


. 80 


V. 30 




6r 




22 


. 80 


41 




••45 


xi. 


19 •• 


. 80 


VI. 3 




.. 64 


x}i. 


41 


- 74 


5 




72 




47 


10 


14 




72 


xiii. 


36 


12 


20 




.31 




21 


. 61 


27 




64 




47 


• 77 


52 




48 




52 


• 73 


IX. 3 




30 


xiv. 


2 


- 72 


5 




13 




8 


• 45 


7 




82 




19 


• 32 


22, 23 




31 


XV. 


27 


. 46 


24 




.. t^o 


xvi. 


14 


• 63 


28 




80 




23 


. 61 


39 ■ 




72 


xvii. 


4 


• 13 


X. 4 




80 




5 


. 82 


41 




82 




10 


• 63 


44 




82 




19 


. 80 


51 




83 




24 


• fs '^ 


xii. 6 




82 




'5 


. 61 


26 




.. 22 - 




27 


■ 65 


40 




74 


XV iii. 


17 


• 31 


xiii. 13 




80 




28 


- n 


32 




71 


xijs. 


7 


. 80 


xiv. 38 




80 




20 


■ 55 


XV. 33 




78 


XX. 


24 


. 82 


. 45 


. . • 


83 




27 


. 82 


xvi. 16 




74 


xxii. 


37 


. 67 


9—20 




37 


xxiii. 


7 


. 83 






24 


. 66 


LUKB. 




33 


■ 74 


i- 59 56 




35 


- 69 


63 61 


xxiv. 


24 


• 71 


"•33 14 




30 


- 59 


41 


• • • 


. 


. . 14 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



115 



Luke {contintied). 




Acts. 








PAGE 


PAGE 


iii. 14 


• 53 


i. 13 




• 45 


. 23 


. 46 


». 3 




. 47 


IV. 10' 


. 80 


II 




. 63 


20 


. 62 


... 27 ... 




. (^-:, 


V. 6 


• 56 


111. 13, 26 . . 




. 69 


18 


. 82 


19, 20 . . 




47 


vi. 15 


• 45 


iv. 27, 30 . . 




. 69 


19 


. 61 


V. 20 




. 68 


viJ. 34 


. 80 


vii. 13 




• 77 


viii. 23 


. 56 


... 45 




. 64 


34 


• 13 


Vlll. 9 




• 72 


46 


. 61 


16 




■ 59 


54 


• 45 


37 




. 10 


'X. 5 


. 80 


X. 38 . . 




• 74 


32 


■ 46 


xu. 4 




. 65 


33 


• 13 


12, 25 .. 




. 63 


58 


• 54 


xiii. 7, 8, 12 




. 64 


xi. 48 


. 61 


xiv. 21 




• 73 


... 51 


. 69 


XV. 23 




■ 32 


xm. 2 


• ."^S 


xvi. I 




• 63 


xiv. 10 


. 6i 


7 




• 32 


XV. 10 


. 70 


21 




• 73 


26 


. 69 


.. 23,27 .. 




■ 84 


xvi. 9 


• 32 


xvu. 19 




. 64 


xviii. 12 


. 47 


23 




. 61 


XIX. 13 


. 61 


23 




■ 77 


XX. 37 


. 22 


xviii. 5 




• 32 


xxii. 56 


• 47 


xix. 2 




• 5S 


xxiii. s 


- 64 


9 




• 54 - 


8 


• 71 


II 




. 72 


42 


- 5Q 


31 




. 64 


44 


. 78 


37 




. 83 


xxiv. 17 


• 32 


38 .. 




. 64 


25 


• 47 


XX. 28 




• 14 


46 


• 32 


xxi. 15 




. 62 


53 


. II 


xxii- 28 




- 71 






XXV. 26 




• 74 






xxvi. 13 




• 75 


John. 




24, 25 . . 




. 82 




28 




. 48 






xxviii. 13 




. 62 


i. 21 


• 54 




38 


• 83 


Romans. 


42 


• 63 




iii. 16 


. 67 


i. 13 


. . . . 


. 61 


17, 18 


• 74 


29 






. 61 


iv. 31 


. 83 


11. 22 






• 83 


37 


• 54 


iii. 25 






• 48 


48 


• 71 


iv. 3, etc. 






• 79 


V. 3,4 


10 


19 






• 33 


.33 


• 56 


v. I 






• 33 


VI. II 


• 32 


vi. 2 






• 75 


32 


• 54 


vii. 6 






• 33 


50 


. 16 


7, 8 .. 






• 79 


..57 


. c;8 


viii. I 






. 12 


vn. I 


. 64 


xi. 7, 25 . . 






. 48 


17 


- 7« 


..30 






• 70 


20 


• 73 


XII. 2 






• 73 


41 


• 57 


17 






. 61 


53— viii. II 


. 38 


19 






. 80, 82 


v"i- 33 


. S6 


XIV. 4 






12 


52 


. 16 


23 






• 74 


. 58 


• 72 


XV. 6 






. 84 


IX. 17 


• 47 


.30 






. 58 


X 14. 13 


. 47 


XVI. 5 






• 33 


16 


. €8 


23 






. 64 


23 ' • 


. 69 




XI. 3, 5 


. 67, 68 


I Corinthians. 


20 


• 47 




xii. 40 


. 48 


i. 13 






. 59 


xiii. 2 


• 73 


iii. 17 ... 






• 77 


10 


• 70 


iv. 3, 4, 5 






. 74 


..24 


• 32 


4 .. ^ 






■ 48 


xvu. 3 


• 53 


.13 ■• ^• 


T- 




. 16 


12 


• 72 


VI. 20 






12 


XX. 2 


. 67 


vii. 26 






• 58 


16 


■ 32, 83 


viii. 6 






• 59 


xxi. 15, 16, 17 


. 63, 67 


X. 2 






• 59 


18, 19 


• 55 


24 




. 


. 61 



ii6 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



I Corinthians ^continued). 

PAGE 

xi. 24 33 

26 .. .. •• ..Si 

29 33. 6r, 74 

31 74 

xii. 6 -6 

29 72 

xiii, 3 3* 

12 . . . . .. • • 71 

xiv. 2o . . . . . . . . 69 

XV. 4 .. 55 

xvi. 15 33 

2 Corinthians. 

i. I 63 

4, 6 79 

• iQ 63 

20 30 

ii. 14 49 

16 83 

iii. 5 8; 

14 4S 

15 S3 

15,18 79 

17 54 

iv. 3 79 

V. 10 57 

Z4 .. *• .. •" To 

21 .. .. .. ..62 

vi. 9 .. .. .. -.71 

vii. 8, 10 .. .. .. 70 

11 54 

X. 15, 16 84 

xi. 19 ,. .. .. ..84 

Galatians. 

iii. 6 ..So 

iv. 8 82 

14 34 

17 .. .. .. ..61 

^x .. •• •» •• 53 

V. 17 4^ 

EPHESiANS. 

i- 7 13 

9 8 1 

17 .. .. .. .. 71 

ii. 2 . . . . . . . . 70 

iv. 2 .. ... .. .81 

6 8i 

18 48 

29 50 

V. I 82 

29 34 

VI. 5 81 

12 . . . . . . . . 62 

Philippians. 

.»• 16, 17 34 

11. 6 .. .. .. ..22 

... 15 57 

"I- 5 S3 

20 61 

iv- 2i 3 50 ^ 

8 . . . . , . , . 61 

COLOSSIANS. 

.»• 14 13 

"• I 39 

«5 50 

12 81 

18 34 

19 81 

iii. 12 81 

17 84 

22 ,» ,, ,, vaOX 

iv. 10 . . 63 

14 63 



1 Thessalokians. 





PAGE 


I. I 


.-34 


11. 19 


. . 34 


Ul. 1 1 


-• 34 


.13 


. ■ 34 


IV. 15 


..61 


V. 28 


•• 34, 75 



2 TH'iSSALONIANS. 



1. 2 




• • 34 


12 




• • 34 


U. I 




.. 50 


3 




•• 53 


7 




.. 61 


8 


I Timothy 


- • 34 


1. 4 


. 


.. 9 


12 




•• 35 


.. 14 




•• 35 


11. 5 




•• 35 


.. 7 




. .. 84 


Ul. 13 




- • 3S 


16 




.. 40 


iv. 6 




.. 34 


V. 4 




.. 61 


21 




•• 34 


VI. 5 




.. 50 


8 




•• 57 


9 




.. 71 


10 




.. S3 


12, 13 . 




. .. 84 • 


13 




•• 35 




2 Timothy 




i. I 


. . . • 


.• 34, 35 


2 




•• 35 


9 




•• 35 


13 




. . ••35 


11. 3 




.. 34 


10 




• • 35 


12 




. .. 78 


111. 12 




.. 35 


15 




.. 35 


IV. IX 


Titus. 


. .. 63 


1. 4 


■ • • • 


..34 


12 


Philemon. 


.. t-3 


2 


■ ^ « - • • 


•• 35 


7 


« • • • 


• • 35 


24 


Hebrews. 


. .. 63 


i- 3 




•• 75 


III. II 




. .. 80 


IV. 2 




.. 35 


3.5 . 




.. 80 


6 




.. 70 


8 




.. 64 


12 * 




.. 61 


14 




.. 59 


VI. 7 




. .. 58 


ix. 6 




.. 57 


X. 30 




.. 80 


. 34 




• • 35 


XI. 10 




• • 53 


13 




. . SO 


23 




. ..61 


Xll. I 




• • 63 


12 




.. 82 


xm. 21 




■• 63 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



it; 





James. 


PAGB 


i. 6 


. 


•• 73 


.. 19 


. • 


•• 35 


11. I 


. 


.. 63 


2 


• . > • • 


.. 83 


iii. I 


> • 


•• 63 


V. 20 


I Peter. 


.. 54 


i- 3 


• • • • • 


.. 84 


ii. 8 


• 


.. 70 


21 


• • • . 


•• 35 


iii. II 


• • • • • 


.. 6t 


15 


. 


.. 41 


21 


. . 


•• 51 


iv, 8 


> > > • • 


.. 54 


V. I 


• 


-•75 


13 


2 Peter. 


.. 63 


i- 3 


. 


.. 58 


.. H 


. 


•• 55 


u. 10 


• • • • • 


.. 81 


... ^7 


• ■ • ■ • 


.. 81 


111. 2 


I John. 


-• 35 


ii. 23 


. . 


.. 10 


iii. T 


. . • . • 


•• 35 


V. 7,8 . 


■ . • . . 


• • 14, 41 


13 


. 


.. 30 



2 John. 



12 



3 John. 



JUDE. 



PAGE 

35 



35 



I 

8 


• 


• 


• 


. 36, 
. 8[ 


13 81 


Revelation. 


i. 3 

u. 13 






• 


• 54 
. 78 


iv. I 








12 


4 

6 etc^. 
V. 6 etc.. 








• 78 

• 51 

• 51 


vi. I etc. . 








. 51 


vii. II 








• 51 


14 








• 57 


xiii. I 








• 51 


xiv. 3 








♦ 51 


9 








• 51 


XV. 7 

xvi. 10 

xviL 8 








: 58 
. 36 


xix. 4 
xxii. II 

14 




,\ , 




. 51 
. 36 
. 36 



THt MOST VALUABLE BIBLE IN THE WORLD, 



A Great Opportunity for American Scholars and Public Libraries to Secure 

tbe Celebrated 

LEVANTE'S HEXAGLOT BIBLE, 

At one-third the present price in America, and much less than the price in England- 



1,000 SUBSCRIBERS NEEDED 

TO MAKE THE PLAN PRACTICABLE. 



The Hexaglot Bible, comprising the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
in the original tongues, together with the Septuagint, the Syriac (of the New Testa- 
ment), the Vulgate, the Authorized English, the German, and the most approved French 
versions, all arranged in parallel columns. 

The HEBKEW {in the Old Testament only) is that of Van Dee Hooght, carefully revised. 
The GEEEK, in the Old Testament, is Dr. Tischendokfs Latest Edition, with the gaps 
supplied, in brackets, from various sources; and, in the New Testament, Dr. Tischen- 
dokfs Eighth Edition, similarly supplemented. The LATIN, in the Old Testament, is the 
Clementine Edition of the Vulgate, and in the New Testament, Dr. Tischendokt's edition 
of the Codex Amiatinus, with the gaps supplied, in brackets, from the Clementine 
Edition, and other peculiarities fully detailed in the Prolegomenon. The SYKIAC {in 
the New Testament only) is based on that of the justly celebrated "Biblia Sacra Polyglotta," 
edited by Bishop Walton. The ENGLISH is the Authorized Version; in the Old Testament, 
that of 1608, in the New Testament, that of 1611. The GEEMAN is Makten Ltjthee's 
translation. The FRENCH is the translation executed by Da-std IIaktin revised. 

With Volumes I. and II. are issued facsimile reproductions of seven antique and 
valuable Biblical Engravings, which, it is believed, will prove to be a valuable and inter- 
esting adjunct to the work. Of these, three appeared originally in Bishop Walton's 
Polyglot Bible, and four in the edition of the English Bible, "printed at Cambridge, 
by John Field, printer to the Universitie, and illustrated with chorographical sculps 
by J. Ogilby." Folio, 1660. 

The Hexaglot Bible forms Six Handsome Royal Quarto Volumes, viz. : — The Old 
Testament, 4 Vols., and the New Testament, 2 Vols., thus divided: — 

Vol. I. THE PENTATEUCH, 632 pages. 

" IL JOSHUA— 2 KINGS, 579 pages. 

" III. I CHRONICLES— SOLOMON'S SONG, 672 pages. 

" IV. ISAIAH— MALACHI, 714 pages. 

" V. THE FOUR GOSPELS, 692 pages. 

" VI. ACTS— REVELATION, 914 pages. 

Edited by the Bev. EDWARD RICHES DE LEVANTE, A.M., Ph.D., assisted by 
many English scholars. 

This great work has been completed some two or three years, and has awakened 
much attention among European scholars. 



THE OFFER TO AMERICAN SCHOLARS. 

The plates alone of this wonderful work cost thousands of pounds sterling. The lj 
publishers' subscription price in England was £12 ($60.00), and is now £8. $60.00 is 
the price heretofore asked in America. 



i 



We bave made a special arrangement with the English publishers, by which we ato 
enabled to make the following ofier: — 

If we can secure a list of 1,000 Subscribers, we will be enabled to furnish the 
work at Twenty Dollars. It will be printed in England from the original plates, 
and on the same kind of paper as the English Edition, and will be bound in 
six Royal Quarto volumes, Cloth. 

The money need not be sent until we give notice that a sufficient number of names 
have been sent us. 

We will deliver in Xew York City at this price. Espressage to any other point wiU 
be extra. Canadian subscribers will be supplied from our agents in Toronto. 

Those interested in this great undertaking will please mention it to the managers of 
collegiate and other public libraries; also, to cultured business men. 

We wish the names of all who intend subscribing to be sent us as early as possible. 

Send for prospectus, giving sample pages, &c. 



SELECTED CRITICAL NOTICES* 

From His Gbace, The Lokd Akchbishop op Canteebukt — "I have satisfied myself 
that * The Hexaglot Bible' is in comi)etent hands " 

Erom the VeeyEev. The Dean of Cantekextry — "I have examined carefully several 
portions of ' The Hexaglot Bible,' and it seems to me to be a very valable work, and is 
edited competently and correctly." 

From the Eev John Eaixte, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Biblic 1 Literature and Exe- 
getical Theology, Glasgow, a Member of the Efverendand Learned Company appointed 
by Convocation to revise the Authorized Version of the New Testament — "These are six 
very handsome volumes, beautifully printed, and tastefully arranged. The paper is so ex- 
cellent and the typpi so clear, th«t it is a pleasure to consult or read them. Its value 
consists in the faci itv which it afiords to any critical inquirer of seeing at a glance tbe 
words of the orig'Ua^s and transitions, so that he tan speedily draw his conclusion^, 
without the necessity of opening many different editions. The editors have bestowed 
great pains on the work, to secure that accuracy on which its merit depend?, and the 
publishers have spared no expense on the enterprise. There is also a Prolegomenon of 
great interest to all who may be inclined to study the various readings of the different 
texts. The pnblication of the Hexaglot marks an epoch in the modern history of 
Biblical literature." 

From James Keenahan, M.A., Ph.D., F.K.S.L., F.G.S.— "The Hexaglot Bible is, in- 
deed, an honor to this country [England]. The type is clear and beautiful, and the edito- 
rial care exercised is most commendable, deserves great credit, and is in every way trust- 
worthy. It is impossible to speak too highly of the Prolegomenon. It is a most valuable 
edition, and proof of extraordinary Biblical scholarship." 

From The Briiish Quarterly Beview—" 'Each version has been committed to a scholar 
qualified for editing it, and the whole has been produced in a style of printing v/hich 
places the work at the head of the Biblical texts of this century. It is not only a sump- 
tuous book for a library, but is also a book of comparative versions, which wall be of 
Incalculable convenience and value to the Biblical philologist and exegete. It is a work 
which is a credit to English scholarship and typography. Anything like criticism of 
such a work i'^, from the nature of it, impossible. It can only be commended. It is 
the finest polyglot next to Walton." 

Extract from a long Eeview in The London Morning Fost — ' The difierent texts of 
'The Hexaglot Bible' are so placed in six parallel columns that the verses correspond, 
each column ending with the same verse. The advantage of this arrangement is ob- 
vious. jSot only is a great saving of time effected, but the scholar is enabled to ascer- 
tain at a glance the rendering of a passage in all the various versions; and there is, perhaps, 
no form of Commentary more instructive than this." 

From The English CI. urchman — "Of the extreme beauty and accuracy of its typo- 
graphy, and the convenient facility it affords for direct and immediate reference, and 
comparison of the same passage in six different versions, w)@--cannot speak too highly. 
The Prolegomena form a body of critical Biblical information of the highest value to the 
divinity student and to all who t .ke a deep interest in the literature of the Bible." 

Special Agents for America, 

I, K. FUNK & CO., 10 d; 12 Dey St,^ N, Y. 



PUBLICATIONS OF I. K. FUNK & CO., 

10 & 12 DEY STREET, NEW YORK. 

Sent, i^osiage S^repaid, on Receipt of ^rice. 



Carlyle 



Analytical Bible Concordance, 

Analytical Conconlance to tlie Bible on an entirely new plan. Containing every 'word 
iu Alphabetic il Order, arranged under its Hebrew or Greek onginal. with the Literal 
Meaning of Each, wnd its Pronunciation. Exhibiting about 31j,U00 Kelerences, 
marking 30,0U0 various readings in t.e New Testament, With the latest informa- 
tion on Biblical Geography and Antiquities. Designed for the simplest reader of 
the EnglisU Bible. By Eobert Young, LL.D., author of "A New Literal Translation 
of the Hebrew and Greek IScriptures," etc., etc. Only ReviseiJ, Authorized Edition. 
Printed on heavy paper, with wide margins. One large volume (1,090 pp.), cloth, 
$3.65. Same, bound iu sheep, $4 4:0. Same, in French im. morocco, Si.65. 

Bertram's Horn He tic Encyclopcedia. 

A Homiletio Encyclopsedia of Illustrations in Theology and Morals. A Handbook of 
Practical D^dnity, and a Commentary on Holy Scripture. Selected and arranged 
by Kev. K. A. Bertram, compiler of " A Dictionary of Poetical Illustrations," etc. 
Eoyal 8vo, cloth, 882 pp., S3.75. 

's Sartor Resartus. 

Sartor Kesartus; The life and opinions of Herr Teufelsdrockh. By Thomas Car- 
Jyle. 8vo, 176 pp., bound inpax^er, 25 cent-;, clota, 60 cents. 

Christian Sociology. 

By J. H. W. Stuckenberg, D.D., Prof essor in the Theological Department of "Witten- 
berg College. A new and highly commended book. 12mo, cloth, 382 pp. $1.50. 

Complete Preacher. 

The Complete Preacher. A Sermonie Magazin'^. Containing nearly 6ne hundred 
sermons in full, by many of the greatest preachers in this and other countries in 
the various denouninations. 3 vols., 8vo, cloih. Each $1.50, or, pei- set, SI. 00. 

Drill-Book in Vocal Culture. 

Drill Book in Yocal Culture and Gesture. By Eev. Prof. Edwaed P. Thwing. Sixth 
edition. 12mo, manilla covers, 115 pp., 25 cents. 

Gilead : An Allegory. 

Gilead; or, The Vision of All Souls' Hospital. An Allegory. By Eev. J. Hyatt 
Smith, Congressman-elect. 12mo, cloth, 360 pp., $1.00. 

Guizot's Life of Calvin. 

John Cnlvin. By M. Guizot, member of the Institute of France. 12mo., cloth, 166 
pp., 40 cents. 

Godet's Commentary on Luke. 

A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Godet, Doctor and Profepsor of 
Theologr, Neufchatel. Translated from the Second French Edition. With Preface 
and Notes by John Hnll, D.D. New edition, printed on heavy paper, 8vo, 584 pp., 
bound in 2 vols., paper, $2.00; same in 1 vol., cloth, $2.50. 

Half-Dime Hymn Book. 

Standard Hymns. With Biographical Notes of their Authoi-s. Compiled by Eev. 
Edward P. Thwing. 32mo, paper, 96 pp. Each, 6c. ; in lots of fifty or more, 5c. 

Hand- Book of Illustrations. 

The Preacher's Cabinet. A Hand-Book of Illustrations. By Eev. Edward P . Thwing, 
author of "Drill-Book in Vocal Culture," "Outdoor Life in Europe, "etc. Fourth 
edition now ready. Two volumes, 12mo, paper, 144 pp.; 50 cents. 

Home Altar. 

The Home Altar : An Appeal in Behalf of Fami'y Worship. With Prayers and Hymns 
for Family Use. By Eev. Charles F. Deems. LL.D., pastor cf the Church of th« 
Strangers. Third edition. 12mo, cloth, 281 pp., 75 cents. 



Horn He tic Monthly. 

'llie Preacher and Homiletic Monthly. A Magazine of Sermons, and other matter of 
Homiletic interest and instruction. (Subscription price, $2.50 per year ; single 
numbers 25 cents.) Vol. III. 8vo, cloth, 724 pp., $3.00. 

Same as above, Vol. IV., now ready. 8vo, cxoth, 728 pp., $3.00. 

The Horn Hist 

By Davu) Thomas, D.D.. author of "The Practical Philosopher," "The Philosophy of 
Happiness. ' etc. Vol. XII. Editor's Series. (Complete in itself). 12mo, cloth, 
36S pp., printed on heavy tinted paper, $1.25. 

How to Enjoy Life. 

Clergymen's and Students' Health; or, Physical and Mental Hygiene, the True Way 
to Eojoy Life. By William Mason Coknell, M.D,, LL.D., Fellow of the Massa- 
chusetts Medical Society, Permanent Member of the American Medical Association. 
Fifth Edition. 12mo, cloth, 36U pp., $1.00. 

How to Pay Church Debts. 

How to pay Church Debts, and How to keep Churches out of Debt. By Hev. Stlvanus 
Stall, A. M. 12mo, cloth, 280 pp., $1.50. 

Knight's History of England. 

'ihe Popular History of England. A History of Society and Government from the 
Earliest Period to our own Times. By Chaeles Knight. Tables of Contents. In- 
dex, Appendix, Notes and Letterpress unabridged. Complete in 8 vols. (Standard 
Series, Nos. 12-19. ) 4to, manilla. 1,370 pp. $2.80. 

Bound handsomely in cloth, in two vols., $3.75; same in four vols., $4.40; in sheep, 
one large vol., $4.00; same in two volumes, $5.00; in French imitation of morocco, 
one large volume, $4.5U; same in two vols., $5.50. 

Methodist Plans. 

Methodist Plans. Plans of One Hundred and Sixty-six Sermons. Bj Kev. Wm. 
Stevens. 12mo, cloth, 288 pp., $1.50. 

Metropolitan Pulpit. 

Metropolitan Pulpit, The. Containing carefully prepared Condensation!? of Leading 
Sermons, preached in New York and Brooklyn, Outlines of Sermons preached else- 
where, and much other Homiletic matter. Vol. I. Royal 8vo, cloth, 206 pp., $1.50. 

Vol. II , enlarged. (Metropolitan Pulpit and Homiletic Monthly). Royal 8vo, 
cloth, 388 pp. $2.75. Per set. Vols. I. and II., $4.00. 

Popery. 

Popery the Foe of the Church and of the Republic. By Rev. Joseph S. VanDyee, 
A.M., authorof "Through the Prison to the Throne," etc. 8vo, cloth, 304 pp., 
$1.00. 

Stems and Twigs. 

Stems and Twigs ; or Sermon Framework. Being notes of over two hundred Ser- 
mons. By R. Andrew Geeffin. 12mo, cloth, 362 pp., $1.25. 
Same as above. Second Series, $1.25. 

These Sayings of Mine. 

"These Sayings of Mine." Pulpit Notes on Seven Chapters of the First Gospel. By 
Joseph Paeeer, D.D. With an introduction by Dr Deems. 8vo, cloth, 320 j)p.5 $1.50. 

Things Hew and Old. 

Things N ;W ani Old. A Storehouse of Illustrations, Apologues, Adages, with their 
several applications ; collected from the writings and sayinps of the learned in all 
ages. By John Spencer. To wldch is added, "A Treasury of {Similes," by Robert 
Cawdray. Royal 8vo, cloth, over 1,100 pp., $4.00. 

Through the Prison to the Throne. 

Through the Prison to the Throne. Illustrations of Life from the Biography of Jos- 
eph. By Rev. Joseph S. Van Dyke, A. M., author of "Popery, tlie Foe of the 
Church and of the Republic." 16mo, cloih. 254 pp., $1.00, 

Van Doren's Commentary. 

A Suggestive Commentary on Luke, with Critical and Homiletical Notes. By W. 
H. Van DoREN, D.D. E^lited by Prof. James Kernahan, London. 8vo, 1104 pp., 
bound in 4 vols., paper, $3.00, same in 2 vols., cloth, $3.75. 

J. K. FUNK £ CO., rubUsherSf 10 <^ 12 1)ey St., New York. 



BOOKS BY DR. ROBERT YOUNG, 

AUTHOR OF "YOUNG'S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE:' 



Young's New Version of the Holy Bible. 

TRANSLATED ACCORDING TO THE LETTER AND IDIOMS OF THE 

ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. 



Octavo, Second Edition, Hevised, Price, postpaid, $4,00, 

CRITIC AI. NOTICES FR03I E.VGLISH SCHOLARS. 



From the Rev. W. Orme, London. 

"I have been much interesteJ in noting the exam- 
ples you give of the ' lax ' and ' confused ' readings 
of King James' Version. . . . Your labors I re- 
gard as furnishing a most valuable contribution to a 
better knowledge of the Word of God ." 

From the Right Hon. Lord Congleton, Author 
of a New Version of the Psalms. 

"I had long regarded the so-called Hebrew future 
as apresent, . . . but I did n^t know that the 
case was so strong as against Waw Conversive ; it will 
now, I trust, be considered aj ^jr//(7<f^t/. . , . Ihat 
your version will be of the greatest help to the learned, 
and quite an epoch in the study of Hebrew, I have no 
doubt." 

From the Rev. Robert Nisbet, D. D., Edin- 
burgh. 

*' While transmitting my name as a subscriber to 
Mr. Young's Translation and Commentary, I cannot 
help saying that I regard their publication as the most 
valuable contribution to Biblical learning the Church 
has received for many years, and you will have the 
satisfaction, I trust, of finding that no Minister or 
Student of the Holy Scriptures fails to provide himself 
with a copy." 

From the Rev. Thomas Sprouston, D. D., 
Belfast. 
" I have no hesitation in saying that I regard your 
labors as most important and beneficial at the present 
time, when the foundations of the f^ith are assailed, 
and when it is of the greatest moment that the nun s- 
ters of the Church should be trained to the close and 
habitual study of the word of inspiration. . . . Let 
me asvure you that I take the deepest interest in your 
valuable labors. ' 

From the Rev. John Latham, B. D., Preb. of 

Lichfield. 

"I most heartily wish you success in your important 
labors. If you can bring tne Hebrew within the rules 
of legitimate criticism, you will indeed accomplish a 
great and good work. In a philological point of view, 
I have always regarded the study of Hebrew as most 
unsatisfactory, and 1 am glad to find that you see the 
lax and unsatisfactory rules hitherto laid down by He- 
brew scholars, and that you are searching in the right 
direction — viz.: in the study of the cognate languages 
— tor rules more definite and intelligible I should 
probably have known more of Hebrew than I do, but 
for such difijculties as the Waw Conversive continually ^ 
occurring." 



Frdrn the Kev. J. H. Vidal, Hurst Green. 

" Your observations on the subject ot Hebrew Tenses 
ore full of interest, and worthy of careful examination. 
I cin do little but amuse myself by dipping into the 
Rabbinical Commentaries, &c. ; so far, however, as I 
have noticed, you are quite justified in saying that the 
Conversive principle is not found in any of the Post' 
Messianic Hebrew writers, and it is certainly a phe- 
nomenon of no ordinary kind that such a principle — if 
once a peculiarity rf the language — should have so 
entirely and so silently disappeared." 

From Rev. Adam Stuart Muir, D. D., Leith. 

" Having examined, with much care, the New 
Translation of the Holy Scriptures by Mr. Robert 
Young, I have much pleasure in testifying to iis e!ose 
adherence to the original Hebrew. The style through- 
out is strikingly picturesque, and frequently dramatic, 
while many of the emendations are peculiarly felicit- 
ous. Not a few of the argumeiits usually brought by 
infidel authors against some of the leading doctrines of 
our most holy faith are at once answered simply by the 
correct rendering of the Hebrew phrases. Whilst this 
New Translation is by no means intended as a rival to 
the Common (or King James') Version, still it cahnot 
fail to be hailed as a great gift by all who desire to 
know correctly what is the teaching of the Holy 
Spirit." 

From the Rev. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., F.R.S.E., 
of the North British Review 

" I have often felt that a translation of the Scriptures 
would be of invaluable use to ordinary readers (not as 
superseding our time-honoied version, but as supple- 
mentary to it), that would be an exact counterpart of 
the Hebrew —rendering the Hebrew words and phrases 
uniformly (or as nearly so as possible) by the same 
English words and phrases, giving the tenses ai.d 
moods exactly as they are in the original; in a word, 
causing the Scriptures to present to the English reader 
r ot only thesame general meaning, but even the same 
minute shades of thought and feeling which they pre- 
sent to those familiar with the original tongues. Mr. 
Young's translation seems to be admirably adapted to 
meet this want, and I hope to see it, in the sense I 
have indicated, a Stand Hrd Work. I am not Hebraist 
enough to decide whether Waw Conversive is to be 
condemned, but I have always thought it an unlikely 
theory ; I have often noticed the confusion and tjie 
feebleness it gives rise to in. some of the finest descrip- 
t<ve passages, and I admire the simplicity and uniform- 
ity which Mr. Young obtains by discarding it." 



BIBLICAL NOTES AND QUERIES. 

BY KOBEET YOUNG, LL.D. 

This book is made up of Biblical Notes and Queries regarding Biblical Criticism and 
Interpretation. Ecclesiastical History, Antiquities, Biography and Bibliography, Ancient 
and Modern Versions, Trogress in Theological Science, Eeviews, etc. 

It is a very scholarly and suggestive work. Price $3 00. 

THE AMEEICAN AGENTS, 

1. K. FUNK & CO., lO and 12 Dey St., IVew York. 



ANALYTICAL BIBLE TREASURY : BEING APPENDIXES TO THE 

ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE 

A New and Important "Worh:, 

By ROBERT YOUNG, D.D.. LL.D. 

CONXENXS. 

1 . A nalytical Survey of all the Books of the Bible, 

2. " " " Facts 

3. " " " Idioms " '' 

4. Bible Themes. — Questions. — Canonicity. — Rationalism, etc. 
Together with colored maps and plans of Bible lands and places, 

5 . Hebrew and EnglisJi Lexicon to the Old Testament. 

6. Idiomatic Use of the Hebrew and Greek Tenses. 

7. Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. 

Price, Bound in Clotli, Postpaid, ^4.00. 



ONLY 30 CENTS PER YEAR, 



A NEY^ FINEI.Y II.I^USTRAT£:i> PAPER, 

"^ Intensely interesting, hut neltlier flashy nor sensational,'' 
*^ Should he introduced into every home of the land,'' 

THE PAPER INTERESTS YOUNG AND OLD, 

You cannot do a better thing for your children than to place this cheap but beautiful paper 

within their reach. 

^' AT HOME " is of absorbing interest, and yet is clean and healthful. 
Just the paper for Home Reading. It coots but 30 cents. 

The paper is prepared wilh a view to being read in the family circle. Several pages aredev.ted to enter- 
taining, instructive stories, illustrated by large engravings. The Children's Department is full of interest and 
amusement ior the young folks. Other columns are given to Household Economies or Recipes, Health Hints and 
Temperance News. The Rural Notes, or items about farm and garden, will be found helpful to many who take 
pleasure in planting and training fruits and flowers, etc. Poetry, short stories, and humorous paragraphs add to 
the general spicy, pleasing appearance of the paper. 

Just the paper for Literary Societies. 

It is designed to educate and instruct in all departments of science, literature and art. The articles are from 
thepensofo^r most eminent living writers. Special contributors furnish papers on subjects of current interest. 
Descriptions of travel and exploration, with scenes in foreign countries ; departments ot natural history and 
scien ific discovery ; selections of prose and verse from popular authors, and paragraphs of biography and anecdote, 
arecalculated to deve'.op a taste for reading and study. We shall occasionally occupy a half column with Legal 
Advice, which will prove valuable to every citizen, and also to the youth. Our *' General Outlook " will, from" 
time to time, cover the field of home and foreign news. 

Just the paper for the Church and Sunday-school. 

■ This is a capital paper for distribution in Sabbath-schools. We have a department of "Questions and 
Replies on the International S. S. Lesson?," specially prepared for the paper. This will greatly assist the scholars 
in studying the lessons at home. All the pages are edited so as to furnish reading, neither "goody-goody." nor 
too sensational. The paper is appropriate for Sabbath reading. No better tract could be circulated in prisons, 
hospitals, among sailors and soldiers. The illustrations frequently represent Bible scenes and characters. The 
price, per hundred copies, is so low, that S. S. superintendents, chaplains and city missionaries can oraer and 
circulate gratis. 

Send a three-cent stamp for a sample copy, or enclose thirty cents and receive thepaperforone 

year. 

I. K. FUNK & CO., Publishers, lo and 12 Dey St., New York. 



Books by Rev. E. P. Thwlng, 

Professor of Rhetoric and Vocal Culture. 
156 St. Mark's Avenue, Brooklyn, X. Y, 

Sent Postage Prepaid, on Eeceipt of Price. 

Drill Book in Vocal Culture and Gesture. 

Sixth edition now ready. Course of Study : Chapter I. Considers the Importance and 
Method of Vocal Culture. Chapter U. Is a Brief Outline of Preparatory Physical 
Training by Respiratory Exercises and Gymnastics. Chapter III. Treats of Pro- 
duction of Tone, the Peculiarities of Different Voices, and the Method of Cultivating 
Compass and Purity. Chapter IV. Is Devoted to Articulation of Elements, Forma- 
tion of Syllables and Division of Words. Chapter V. Treats of Stress andEoophasis. 
Chapter VI. loflection, Pitch, Melod}', Force and Eate of Movement. Chapter VII. 
Personation or Picturing. Chapter VIII. Gesture and Extemporaneous Speech. 
Chapter IX. Facial Expression. 16mo, paper, 115 pp., illustrated. Price, 25 Cents. 

Eev. Prof. J. L. Chapmak, a veteran in the cause of education, particularly at the "West, -vrntes: " It is 
clear, progressive, systematic; what I have long wanted for students and wished for the ministry." 

" I saw much of Prof. Thwing's labors in the Normal Institute for Physical Education," writes its 
President in 1371, •' and found that hismethods were founded upon Science, and had been greatly en- 
riched by a long and varied experience in the use of his voice before public audiences. '° 

" [ heartily commend his book," adds Dr. Talmage. " He has rendered valuable service in training 
young men in the art in our Lay College " ■ 

"Every line betokens the -most careful painstaking." — London Fountain. 

Handbook of Illustrations. 

The Preacher's Cabinet, a Handbook of Illustrations. Fourth edition just issued. Two 
volumes, 12mo, paper, 141 pp. Price, each 25 Cents. 

" A cabinet of pearls and a casket of gems." 
" Admirable in every way." — James T. Fields. 

Facts About Tobacco. 

A new book. Contents : Chapter I. — History of the Plant. Chapter II. — Scientific 
Views Presented. Chapter III. — Testimony of Medical Experts. Chapter IV.— 
The Habit Ethically Viewed, Chapter V. — Moral and Religious Considerations. 
Like the "Preacher's Cabinet," by the same author, " Facts About Tobacco " is 
brimful of vivid incidents tersely told. It is a book every one should have, 
whether he is battling against tobacco or not. It is full of statistics andfacts every 
public teacher should have at hand. 12mo, paper, 72 pp. Price 25 Cents. 

"This is by far the best pamphlet on the noxious weed, and its habitual use, that we have seen 
issued since the lamented death of George Trask. We were hoping God would raise up a successor to 
him in this important reform. Is Prof. Thwing the coming man ? " — Zion's Herald. 

" The subject has seldom, if ever, been more powerfully ■presented."— Christian Intelligencer, N. Y. 

"Success to it." — Congregationalist, Boston. 

Outdoor Life in Europe. 

Sketches of Men and Manners, People and Places, during Two Summers Abroad. 
This new volume is full of novel interest, describing in a series of brilliant word- 
pictures outdoor life abroad, from the Hebrides to Venice, and street scenes in 
Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Switzer- 
land'and Italy. Competent critics who have examined the work pronounce it most 
piquant in style, and truthful in delineation. Paper covers. Price 20 Cents. 

"While on a level with the popular taste, and full of the author's characteristic vivacity, it is done 
in the style of practical literary workmanship for which he is distinguished."— CAm^ian Intelligencer. 
"Most graphic and telling." — Dr. Joseph Parker, London. 
" Bright, breezy, beautiful," writes another EngMsh clergyman. 
" Racy, accurate, and in a capital vein." — Rev. Dr. Guyler. 
" Second only to actual sight." — Harvard Register. 

m 

Standard Hymns. 

With Historical Notes of their Authors A collection not of ephemeral productions, 
but of the clssic lyrics of our language, those inspiring compositions which have 
been for years the property of the Church, endeared by tenderest associations, but 
which of late h ve been crowded aside by a lighter kind of song. What is needed 
to-day is a selection of fewer and better productions. Each hymn has the names of 
two tunes affixed, and the key of each indicated. No musio is printed. 32mo, paper, 
96 pp. Price, 6 Cents; in lots of fifty or more 5 Cents. 

*i*AlI tlxe above ISooks may be ordered direct from the author. Address as above. 



TWO THOUSAND OMISSIONS AND IMPERFECTIONS 

In tlie Unautlioris^ed Kdition of 

YOUNG'S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE. 



To the Manager oftlie ''BOOK EXCHANGE,'^ Neiv TorJc. 

Sm — We are glad you have at last had. the manliness to send us a. copy of your 
challenge, offering $100 to Mr. Young or any person who discovers "even twenty im- 
portant discrepancies between his Eevised Edition and our own," i. e. $5 each. 

"We have already, however, afforded you the means of discovering eighty-eight 
passages omitted in your edition; but you have not sent on the money, or even thanks, 
and therefore we decline revealing a second omission of 204 ! — a third of 49 ! — and a 
fourth of 46 ! 

But this we will do. "We will show io any three Clergymen in New York the Author's 
pivate copy, in which will be found every addition, correction, or alteration made (on 
the first edition) in our second, third or fourth editions, amounting to nearly two 
thousand {and none of which, of course, are in yours), on condition that you pay to the 
author the $10,000, which you say he might have netted, and which, of course, you 
have. 

"We might suggest the Rev. Dr. Hall and Dr. Schaff of your city as suitable referees; 
but to save time and correspondence we hereby authorize Mr. I. K. Funk (of Messrs. 
Funk & Co. ) to make all necessary arrangements with you. 

Should you fail, however, to accept this our proposal, the American public will be 
able to j udge of the imperfect state of your Edition, with two thousand uncoeeected 
EEEATA — which, morcovcr, you cannot by any possibiliiy correct, even if you knew them, 
without casting aside your plates as useless, and getting new ones. 

If 118,000 omissions were found in Cruden, it is in no way surprising that we have 
been able to discover two thousand in our first edition; but it is surprising and dis- 
graceful that you should have reproduced the work without even making an attempt to 
correct or improve it. 

We are, Sir, yours obediently, 

G. A. YOUNG & CO., 

March, 1881. 18 Nicolson Steeet, Edinbuegh, Scotland. 



DR. ROBERT YOUNG'S APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN 

> 

PUBLIC. 

Christian Friends and Fellow Students of the Bible : 

It is now nearly foety yeaes since I began the study of Hebrew and the cognate Ori- 
ental Languages unaidted and alone, and during this period I have issued, at my own 
expense, upward of fifty teeatises, more or less extensive, in Biblical and Oriental Liter- 
ature. It will not surprise many of you when I state that nine out of every ten of those 
never paid their expenses, and that only the love of God's revealed will in the Holy Scrip- 
tures has induced me to persevere in my labors. ^"^^ 

About four years ago I began to put to press the manuscript of an '•Analytical Con- 
COEDANCE TO THE BiBLE," in Hebrew, Greek and English—a thing hitherto unthought of 
and unattempted. As it contains 1,090 large quarto pages of three columns each, of 
360,000 lines, with 70,000 Hebrew and Greei: words or headings, it took me nearly three 



years (from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), merely io carry it through the press. In short, it is the out- 
come of a forty-years life-labor. 

It was published at my own expense in September, 1879, at what is reckoned a very 
moderate price, and I hoped to reap some fair share of profit to make up for the past. 
I tried to make some arrangement with an American publisher, and offered copies in 
quantities at one-thied of the published price ; but, meanwhile, another American firm 
advertised a private edition at the mere price of paper and press-work, without even allowing 
anything for the expense of the plates, much less making an acknowledgment to the 
author of any kind whatever, no more than if he had no existence. . 

As this advertisement at such a price put a stop to any desire on the part of Ameri- 
can publishers to purchase copies, the above firm was written to, and they replied 
" We do not care " for your authorization, and " We have no wish to buy it" They , ho >v ever, 
generously added, ""We shall be glad to buy copies when ice can buy cheaper than we can 
manufacture"; and again, "We can readily afford to sell at the simple cost of manufacturing 
and handling, and then we shall consider it a splendid investment for us on account of 
its influence in favor of our other business." ' 

Having settled to their own satisfaction the price it would cost them for paper and 
press-work, they again generously offered ten per cent extra, if the sheets were folded and 
collated, packed carefully in boxes for export, and all transit expenses paid to New 
York ! ! You may judge of the profit to my publisher from such a proposal, and the profit 
to myself as author and proprietor. 

Christian friends, I have no wish to enter on the question of an international copy- 
right, for it is not the question of one publisher against another — but of an author 
who has spent years of labor and thousands of pounds on his work, and who was anxious 
to sell his work in America at the lowest possible price. 

Christian brethren , may I not hope that you will all — singly and conjointly — lift 
up your voice and protest against this piracy and spoliation, and show to the Christian 
Churches in Great Britain that you hate " robbery for a burnt-off'ering" ? I am your 
servant in the Gospel. 

Edinbuegh, Scotland, Dec. 25, 1880. KOBEET YOUNG, LL.D. 



THE ONLY AUTHOKIZED AND REVISED EDITION. 

The Surprise of the Public at its Wonderful Merits. 



Few books ever issued have called forth such unbounded praise as this great work 
of Dr. Young. His appeal to the American clergy and public against the wrong done 
him by the imperfect and unauthorized American reprint, is being responded to most 
warmly. 

FBOM JOHN HALL, D.D., New York. 

"Dr. Robert Young's Analytical Concordance's worthy of the lifetime of labor he has 
spent upon it. I deeply regret that his natural and just expectation of some return 
from its sale on this side the ocean is not realized; and I hope thQ^sense of justice to a 
most painstaking author will lead to the choice by many purchasers of the edition 
which Dr. Young approves — that of Messrs. I. K. Funk & Co., with whom Dr. Young co- 
operates in bringing out here the best edition." 

From Chakles H. Spubgeon. 

" Cruden's Concordance is child's play compared with, this gigantic production, which is as learned 
and as useful as it is comprehensive. The work is costly, and yet it is cheap. The labor of a lifetime is 
here condensed into a quarto which can be bought for 36 shillings ($9.00), or 42 shillings ($10.60). Profes- 
sors of universities and ministers of the Gospel unite their recommendations, and all sections of the church 
offer equally unqualified praise." [The above are the prices in England.] 



From the Christian Advocate, New York. 

"Q. 186. I have seen announcement of 'Young's Analytical Concordance,' and by diflferent houses 
Is it a desirable work, and which is the beet edition 1 " 

" A. It is a very desirable work tp every careful Bible student, and the revised English edition, I. K 
Funk & Co., New York, American agents, is decidedly superior to the poor reprint of a previous edition. 

From the New York Tribune. 

" This is the most important work in religious literature that has been produced for many years. 
It certainly will supersede and displace all similar works which have preceded it. It is at once a Con- 
cordance, in Greek, Hebrew and English Lexicon of Bible words, and a Scriptural Gazetteer, and will be 
as valuable to students of the Holy Word as an Unabridged Dictionary is to the general public. 

" It will be indispensable to the library of every clergyman, and of the greatest value to every 
Sunday-school superintendent and Bible-class teacher and scholar. In fact, every home that kas a Bible 
in it ought also to have this great help to Bible-reading and study." 



From the Christian Intelligencer, New York. 

" Of course, we can never repay Alex. Cruden for the inestimable service which he did, and to which 
be literally sacrificed himself. But, like all other pioneers and originators, the time has come for him to 
be superseded by the very impulse of improvement which he started. Young's Concordance is so far in 
advance as to be entitled to be regarded as an independent work. It has these special points of superi- 
ority : 1st, the insertion of the original Greek or Hebrew of each word; 2d, the literal and primitive mean- 
ing of the word; 3d, all the parallel passages. No less than one hundred and eighteen thousand refer- 
ences, not foumd in Cruden, are given. Doubtful passages and various readings are given. As we have 
said, the list of proper names is the only complete one ever made. There are special features which con. 
stitute it also a complete Scripture Gazetteer." 



[From the Interior, Chicago.] 

" This 'is the most valuable help to the study of 
the Scriptures, and the most important publica- 
tion in religious literature for many years — the 
result of great learning, vast labor, and great skill 
in classification and arrangement. The work of 
Alexander Cruden, which has served the English- 
reading Christian so admirably for more than a 
hundred years, and which is yet performing its 
helpful work for tens of thousands, has served its 
day and generation. Dr. Young's work is beyond 
all comparison, and in every particular, its supe- 
rior. "With Cruden we can find any text of which 
we remember an important word. With Young 
we can trace all that is said by or of any word in 
any of its meanings; and we can have all that the 
Scriptures say or teach on any subject. For ex- 
ample, let us turn to the word of controversy just 
now, ' Wine.' It is to be noted that the Hebrew 
word is given, with its translation in English, and 
after it an exhaustive citation of passages, thus: 
'Wine (1), a thick, sticky syrup — chemer. (2) A 
thick, sticky, mixed syrup — chamar. (3) What is 
pressed out, grape-j nice — yayin. (4) A vat or trough, 
— yegd). (5) Anything mixed — nimsac. (6) Anything 
sucked in or up — sobe. (7) A ripe grape, grape cake 
— enab. (8) Anything pressed on, mead — asis. (9) 
What satiates, pleases — shekar. (10) What is pre- 
served, dregs, sediment — shemar. (11) What is 
possessed, mead, new wine — tirosh. (12) Sweet or 
new wine — gleukos. - (13) Wine, grape-juice — oinos.' 
Under each of these come all the texts in which 
the original word translated 'wine* appears. 
For instance, under ' chsmer,' translated wino, 
every text in which the word 'chemer ' appears in 
the original Hebrew. Under 'oinos' all texts in 
the Greek in which that word appears, and so on. 
The plainest reader can here see for himself the 



whole of the facts on which the argument is made 
by learned men, and can reason as correctly from 
the facts as can the most learned commentator. 
We might further illustrate the admirable charac- 
ter of this great work by a similar quotation of 
the word • master ' — once the center of contro- 
versy — or any one of an hundred or a thousand 
more. We could give no better advice to the Bible 
student than to advise him or her to secure 
a copy. Eobert Young, tj^e author, after putting 
a good part of a lifetime into the preparation of 
this work, and thousands of pounds sterling into 
its publication, found it at onpe mangled and 
pirated by an American firm, who treated him and 
his book in a manner that was simply brutal. 
That the American public might have a full and 
genuine edition, he arranged with the American 
publishers, Messrs. I, K. Funk & Co., 10 and 12 Dey 
Street, New York, to bring out the work from the 
original plates, which they have done, and offer it 
at the very low price of $3.65 for a cloth-bound 
copy. It is a three-column quarto, pages larger 
than those of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ,and 
numbering 1,090." 

[From the Messenger, Philadelphia ] 

" The scholars of the pre-ss commend it without 
stint. . . . The wrongs done to Dr. Young 
show the outrages t!iat may be perpet];ated upon 
any man through wan^t of a good international " 
copyright law. . . . The wrong affects not only 
authors, but the public. Here, for instance, some 
one sends fort5-a work, conspicuous for fifty omis- 
sions on a single page, yet the purchaser does not 
know the difference, because he has no opportun- 
ity to compare editions. The publisher reaps 
profit even in the difference of weight of paper, 
but the buyer is after all the lo-er." 



[Trom the Religious Herald, Eichmond, Va.] 

"The familiar editions of • Cruden's Concord- 
ance ' are valuable mainly for enabling one to find 
a passage of Scripture, and to compare the many 
paBsages in which the same word occurs. But in 
this latter use it often leads the English leader into 
error, because, in our common version, the same 
•word is used to render several different w ords of 
the original. For example, suppose one wishes to 
fix the force of the word ' master,' as found, say, in 
the injunction, ' Be not ye called masters,' Cruden 
gives him references to mere than a hundred 
passages in which the word is found ; but a com- 
parison of these will confuse rather than aid, for 
the translators represented by this single English 
term five different Hebrew words, six pure Greek 
words, and one Hebraic-Greek word, and the par- 
ticular word used in Matt, xxiii: 10, is found 
nowhere else in the Bible. In the volume before 
us, the several passages in which the word occurs 
are grouped under ^(2071= lord, Baal=oy7neT,des- 
jpo<es= despot, didaskalos^teachev, etc., etc. For 
names of persons and places, the Analytical Con- 
cordance answers also the purposes of a Bible 
Dictionary. For example, under 'Mary,' we have 
the passages in which the name is found grou::ed 
under seven h 2ads — the mother of Jesus, the Mag- 
dalene, the mother of «Iames and Joses, the wife 
of Cleophas, the sister of Lazarus, the mother of 
John, Mark and the Eoman Saint (Kom. xvi: 6j. 
So, to geographical names is attached some desig- 
nation of locality, as established by the Pal. Exp. 
So.,iety and other authorities. 

• [From the Congregationalist, Boston.] 

"There can be no question of the vast merits oi 
the work, of the fact that this edition is superior 
to any other, and that a serious injustice is done 
to the eminent author by purchasing any edition 
save that endorsed by him. Such a work is simply 
indispensable ; none is worth using but the very 
best, and the edition of Messrs. Funk & Co. is that 
one." 

[From the Methodist, New York.] 
••It is a prodigy of patient and persistent learned 
labor. The book is a quarto of 1,090 pages, three 



columns each, nearly four hundred lines to a page 
and each a complete reference. When it is recol- 
lected that each of these half a million refer- 
ences is the result of a specit^l research and a ki d 
of judicial determination, some faint idea of the 
amount of labor involved n; ay be gained. In the 
future it will most certainly be known as the Con- 
cordance." 

[From the Illustrated Chrisncn Weekly, I\ew York.] 

" The plan, as will thus be seen, is an admirable 
one. The mechanical, execution of the book is 
most excellent. The edition before us is the re- 
vised edition, to which Dr. Young has made many 
additions and corrections, and it is printed under 
his supervision in Edinburgh. . . . It is a book 
that ought to be in every household alongside of 
the Bible itself. . . . This is not the imper- 
fect and unsightly American reprint, but is the 
•revised and authorized edition.' . . . An Ameri- 
can reprint of this great work is somewhat indus- 
triously advertised, but it is unauthorized, is with- 
out the corrections of the revised editi in, and is 
printed on poor paper, with blurred typography 
that makes mischief, particularly with tne Hebrew 
and Greek words. Our advice to our readers is to 
purchase the Messrs. Funk's edition.^' 

[From the Observer, New York.] 

"This vast and valuable work is already well 
known in this country. Its plan and execution have 
been the subject of remark in these columns. It 
contains every word in alphabetical order, with the 
Hebrew or Greek original, and the literal meaning 
and pronunciation. It is not only a Concordance 
of all the words, including proper names, but it is 
also a Bible Dictionary, with the latest biographical 
and geographical information. Such a compen- 
dium as this is adapted to the wants of students 
of every class, and will become a standard book of 
reference in the library of Bible readers." 

[From Christian at Work, New York.] 

"This concordance meets a want long felt, and 
is the best book of its kind published It contaim, 
all the latest information on iJiblical geograpnj 
and antiquities. No Bible student or Sunaay- 
Bchool teacher can afford to be without it." 

"It has been carefully revised, is printed on ex- 
cellent paper in good style, neatly and strongly 
bound, and must be pronoimced a marvelouslj 
cheap book." — Examiner nd Chronicle, Nexo T-rk. 

" It is the masterpiece of our time? " — Rtlig cut 
Telescope, Dayton, 0. 



71^- HOW COKRECTIONS ARE MADE.— It will be observed that Dr. Young in 
inserting new matter has left the first and last words on each page nnchanged, and has 
saved by omitting the quoted words of several texts — inserting the figures on''y. Thus 
he has been enabled to insert new matter without making a new set of plates. 

TBICES, 

The Revised Scholab's Edition, imported, printed on extra fine, heavy paper, 

with wide margins, bound in cloth $3 65 

In sheep 4 40 

In Fr. im. morocco 4 65 

Remember that the corrected and perfected book has the words, ^^A/iitJiorized 

Edition'^ and ^'Revised Edition,^' on the title page. Dr. Young urges those who 

feel that he has done them a service in this his life work, to help acquaint the public 

with this fact. 

SOLE AGEjVTS for AMERICA, 

I. K. FUXK & CO., lo and 12 Dey Street, ^ew York. 




mm 



•r^v 



^i 



,<:i 



'■'^'^ 




i!i 



'* Bright, Breezy, Beautiful. 



OUTDOOR LIFE IN EUROPE. 

SketcSies of Men and Manners, People and Places, during 

two Summers Abroad. 



By REV. EDWARD PAYSON THWING, 

AUTHOa OF '• VOCAL CULTURE AND G33TUEE." " HANDBOOK OF ILLUSTRATIONS, " 

HYMNS," ETC., ETC. 



STANDARD 



Standard Series No. 26* Price 20 oentr* 

This new volume is fall of novel interest, describing in a series of brilliant wt id- 
pictures outdoor lif ■ abroad, from the H^^brides to Venice, including sketches of people 
and places, and street scenes in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France, Holland, 
Belgium. Germany, Switzerland and Italy. Competent critics who have examined the 
work proDcunce it most piquant and vivid in style, and truthful in delineation. 

T^Tolo of Oozit02::Lts. 



CHAPTER I. 

Ireland and the Irish. — Arrival at Queenstown — 
The City of Cork — Blame/ Castle— Killarne/ La es 
— Ross Castle — Limerick — Roadside S;<etches — 
Dublin — Howth Castie— The Home ot Goldsmith — 
Carlingfordbiy— Rosstrev. r—Newr>— Londonderry 
— The Giant's Causeway — Be fast. 

CHAPTER n. 

Scotland. — Edinboro' — The Scottish Highlands — 
Stirling — Gasgow and the Burns District— Stafia 
and lona— Fingal's Cave — St. Columba, 

CHAPTER HL 

England and Wales.— 1-iverpool — Lake Winder- 
mere — Up and Down Yor^cshire — Harrowgate — 
Knaresboro— The City of York — Driffieid and 
i'hwing— Hu.i— The Universities — Chester and 
North Wales— Welsh Scenery — the Isle of Man — 
Southern Enuland— London Bridge — Along the 
Thame^ — Tower ot Lond.on — lus>-aud's Whx Fig- 
ures — High L'fe and Low — Old Jacol) Stock — Lon- 
don Parks — Windsor and Eton — Bristol and Rev. 
George MuUer— The Me of Wight. 

CHAPTER IV. 

France and Belgium — Walifs about Paris— French 
Character — Indoor and Outdoor — Changes in Paris 
— The Madelaine — Versailles— On to Brussels — Ani- 
werp— lbs Home of Rubens. 

CHAPTER V. 

Holland and Germany. — Rotterdam — House of The 
Tnousand Terrors— Dutch Customs — Town of Dort 



— A Dutch Venice — Streets of Amsterdam — Inter- 
national Courtesies — Fugitive Glances — Utrecht and 
Arnheim — Cologne Cathedral — The Storied Rhine 
— Outdoor Toners — bingen-on-ihe-Rhine — Heide!- 
erg — Carlsruhe. 

CHAPl'ER VI. 

Switzerland. — The City of Basle — Sunday Sights — 
Third class Swiss Carriage> — Lake Leman and Ge- 
neva — Views Afoot — Swi s Festivals — Over the Lake 
— Lausanne — Vevay and Ciarens — A Famous Priso i 
— Swiss Costumes — I'he Bernese Oberland — Alpine 
Glories — Interiaken — Ancient Lake Dwellers — De- 
struction of Goldau — Over the Briinig Pass — Lucerne 
and Pilatus — Sunday scenes — LaUe of the Four 
Cantons — Accent of the Righi — Geneva to Cham- 
bery — The Rhone Valley — A French Town'r-Taking 
Things Easy — Mont Cenis. 

CHAPTER VU, 

Italy, — Arrival at Turin — Geneva and Pisa— Sunday 
at Pisa — Rome and the Romans — The Coliseum and 
Forum — Flavian Amphitheater — Underg'-ou'»d 
Sighrs — A.ncient Memorials — Pincian Hill — Street 
Life — The Corso -St. Pe:er s — Idol Worship— En- 
virons of Rome — Naples and Pompeii — Classic Sur- 
roundings — Memories of Paul — Neapolitan Lit e — 
So.ial Uegradatio" — Museum of Naples — The City 
of the Dead— Florence— A Burial at Night — The 
Bible in Italv — Venice — A Gondol i Excursion — The 
Rialto and the Palaces — Outdoor Ramb'es — St. 
Mark's Cathedral — Stories of the Ten i yiants — 
The Palace of the Doges — The Marriage of the 
Adriatic — The Cathedral and the Bell Tower — 
Homeward Journey. 



Opinions of the Press. 



-Daily 



In a high tJegree life-like and attractive. — Nati'^nal Presbyterian, Louisville, Ky. 

Interesting as a novel; highly graphic. — Christian Intelligencer, New York. 

bpic>, readaule, full of good things; by one who taw much, and could remember it and tell it. 
Standard, Bridgeport. Conn. 

His ability to see something new in scenes often described, a humorous allusion, and a ready fund of historic 
inci(^ent, combine to give a somewnat unique qualiiy to these records — Southern Christian Adv"' ate. 

It has even more ot tne freshness of story-telling than Mrs. Stowe s " Sunny Memories, " arid more extended 
knowledge of the people and scenes. Ii cannot lail to be one of the most popular books of European travel. — 
Christian Cynosure, Chicago. 

While on a level with the popular tiste, and full of t^e author's characteristic vivacity, it is done In the style 
of practical literary -war /emanship, /or which he is distinguished. — Christian Intelligericer, N. Y. 

Rev. Dr. CuvLERsays: " 1 have read it with genuine satisfaction. It is racy, accurate, and in a capital 
vein. " 

Says James T. Fields, Esq., of Boston; '• Many old travelers and many tiew ones, I am sure, will be glad to 
pet it, for it contains just what will hold the attention of all who look back, and all who look forward, to Europtaa 
wanderings." 

For sale by all Booksellers. Sent post-paid, on receipt of the price, by the publishers, 

I. K. FUNK & CO., lo and 12 Dey 3t, N. Y. 



THE BEST BOOKS FOR A TRIFLE 



I. K. FUNK & CO.'S STANDARD SERIES. 




THE CHEAPEST SEBIES OP STAXDAKD EOOKS EVER PUBLISHED. 



These books are printed in large type, on good paper, and are bound 
in expensive postal card manilla. They are q jarto in size except when 
otherwise indicated. 

N O Vff^ R. E A 1> Y. 



No. I. — Jolin Ploagl&nian's Talk. By Rev. 

Charles H. Spurgeon: and On tae CJioice 
of iSoul£8> by Thomas Carlyle. Both in 
one Price 12 cents. 

No. 2. — Manliness of Cbrist. Bv Thomas 
Hughes Price 10 cu. 

No. 3. — "^laoanlBy'sKssays— "Milton," "Dry- 
den," ' F.unyan," "History." " .-amuel John- 
son," two Essays. "Athenian Orators," and 
'•Montgomery's Pcems." Price 15 cents. 

No. 4. — The Liight of Asia. By Edwin Ar 
NOLD. A remarkable poem Price 15 cents 

No. 5 —Imitation of Christ. By Thomas a 
Kempis Price 15 ceiits. 

Nos. 6 and 7.— Ijife of Christ. By Canon Far- 
RAR. Without Notes. Contents and Index 
complete. In twoparts. Price, per part, 25 cents. 

No. 8.-€arlyle'sI58«»»»y8.—" Goethe," "Bums," 
" Luther's Psairn." " Schiller," '• Memoirs o 
Mirabeau," " Death ol Goethe." Price 20 cis 

Nos. 9 and 10. — l^ife of St. Paul. By Canon 
Farrar. Without Notes. Contents and Index 
complete. In two parts. .Price, per part, 23 cents. 

No, II.— On Self-Cnlture. By Professor John 
Stuart Blackie Price 10 cents. 

Nos. 12-19. — Knight's Celebrated Popular 
History «»f England. Notes, Appen- 
dix, and Letterpress complete in 8 parts. (Former 
price, ;^25) Price per part, 35 cents, 

Nos. 20 and 21. — Ijetters to Workmen and 
J.aborei's— Fors Clttvig«»r», By John 
RusKiis. In two parts. Price, per part, 15 cts. 

No. 22.— idyls of the Kins. By Alfred Ten- 
nyson. " Exquisitely beautiful.". .Price 20 cents. 

No. 23 — Rowland Hill — His L<ife, Aneo- 
dotes, and Pulpit Snyings. By Rev. 

Vernon J. Charlesworth. with introduction 
by Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon — Price 15 cents. 

No. 24. — Town neology. By Charles Kings- 
lev (Canon of Chester) Price 15 cents. 

No. 2\. Alfred the Great. By Thomas 

Hughes Price 20 cents. 

No. 26.— Ontdoor Liife In Ktiro-pe. By Rev 

E. P. Thwing. a new copyrighted book. Illus- 
trated Price 20 cents. 

No. 27. — ^Calamities of Authors. By I. 

1) Israeli. (Father ot the laie Lord Beacons- 
field, j Price 20 cents. 

No. 28. — The Salon of Madame Necker. 

(Mother of Madame DeSt&el.) Translated by 
Mary Stuart Smith Price 15 cents. 

No. 29.— The ethics of the Doiit. By John 
K USKIN Price 15 cents. 

Nos. 30 and 31.— Memories of My Fxile. By 

Louis Kossuth. First American Edition. Id 
two parts Price, per part, 20 cents 

No. 32. — Mister Horn and His Friends; 
or, 01 vers and Olving. By Mark 
Guy Pearse. iiiu-£r;<ted Price 15 cents. 



Nos. 



No. 



33 and 34. — The Orations of Demoa- 
thene . Translated by Thomas Leland. 
In two parts Price, per part, 20 cents. 

35 — Frondes Agrestes; or. Readings 
from Raskin's ** Modern Paint- 
ers." Price 15 cents. 

No. 36. — Joan of Arc. By^ALPHONSE deLamar- 
tine Price 10 cents. 

No. 37. — Thoughts of the Emperor Mar- 
cus Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by 
George Long Price isccnis. 

No 38. -The Salon of Madame N^eck^r. 
Part 2 Price 15 cents. 

No. 39.— The Hermits.. By Charles Kingsley, 
Canon ot Chester.) Price 15 cents. 

No. 40. — .Totin Ploughman's Pictures. By 

Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon. Containing 39 
qaa.nt illustrations Price 15 cents. 

No. 41.— Pulpit Table-Talk. By Dean 
Kamsav i Price 10 cents. 

No. 42 —The Bible and the Nevrspaper. 

l^y Charles H. Spurgkon Price ij cents. 

No. 43 — Laron; or. Many Things in Fevr 
VV urd». By C C. Colton . . . Price 20 cents. 

No. 44.— Letters front a Citizen of the 
VVoiJd. By Oliver Goldsmith. . Price 2ocis. 

No. 45. — An»erica Revisite'-*. By George 
Augustus Sala Price 20 cents. 

No. 46— Liife aad "Work of Charles H. 
iSpurg on. Octavo form Price 20 cents. 

No. 47.— John Calvin. By Guizot. Pr.ce 15 cis. 

Nos. 48 and 49 —Christmas Itonko. By Chas. 
Dickens. Illustrated. Octavo form. In two 
parts. Price, per part 25 cenL*-. 

No. ;o.— Culture and Religion By Pbinci- 
palJ C. Shairp. Octavo Price 15 cents. 

Nos. 51 and 52 — Godet's Commentary on 

LiUke. With introduction by John Hall, 
D.D. Octavo. In two parts, per part.... $1.00. 

No. 53.— Diary of a Minister's Wife. An 

excellent book. Octavo. Part I. ..Price 15 cents. 

Nos. 54-57. — Van JDoren's Suggestive 
Commentary on l.uke. Octavo. In 
four parts. Price, per p-rt 75 cents. 

No. 58.— Diary of a Minister's Wife. Octavo. 
Part II Price 15 cents. 

No. 59. — The lVutri»iv« Cure. By Robert 
Walter, M.D. Octavo Price 15 cents. 

No. 60. — Sartor Resartus. By Thoma<; Car- 
LYLE. Oct.AVO Price 25 cents. 

No. 61 and 62. — l<othair. By Lord Beaconsfield. 
Octavo. In two pans. Price, per part 25 cents. 

No. 63. — Th« Persian Queen and other 
Piclares of Truth. By Rev. Edward 
P. Thwing. A new book. Octa vo.. Price 10 cts. 

No. £4.—'! lie Salon of Madame Necker. 

(Mother of Madame DeStael.) Translated from 
the French. Part III Price 15 cents. 



A ddif ions are cor.stantly being mad<* to the nb'^ve list 
These books are for sa e by booksellers or sent, poitage free, on rece'pt of price, by the Publishers, 

I. K. FUNK & CO., LO and 12 Dey Street, N. Y. 



